Roger Hicks on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:23:02 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-b] [s-d] field action |
On Feb 7, 2008 8:50 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > On 05/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2008 9:06 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Consultation: Are there an infinite number of kings? > > > > > > (Arguably, the repetition in Initialize doesn't proceed until the > > > Referee actually chooses the next batch of random numbers, in which > > > case the current match could be salvaged by way of the Referee > > > intentionally failing to do so.) > > > > This is Consultation #104. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope. > > > > Oracle BobTHJ > > I take the es-como-es approach and answer this Consultation NO, with > the Reasoning of "Adjacency for Field Objects is undefined." and the > Oracularity of "The initial placement of Kings is made the current > placement of Kings." > I claim this CONSISTENT (sorry, didn't catch that the first answer was to the discussion forum) BobTHJ _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business