"It comes to a sort of composing before composition. The whole
disposition and organization of the material would have to be ready
when the actual work should begin, and all one asks is: Which is the
actual work?"
(Thomas Mann: Doktor Faustus)
that way. See below.
Doublé:
TANK
gnat
nags
slag
gala
FLAG
(AaaaaF, TtssaA)
...& touché! ;D)))
(Mark: "By Ratatosk's tufts...!")
[Scene shifts. Some days earlier:]
-But, hrmm... "ante" violates §2.
Or does it? This is what caused my delay. As of present, we have:
**************
DoubleTank 1.0
**************
§1 One (and only one) letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No letter may occupy the same position that it did in the
previous turn.
§3 Where the Doublets have letters in common, those letters
cannot be retained during the entire chain - they must be swapped out
(and back) at some point. Furthermore, the letter substituted for the
one in common cannot be the one that is subsequently resubstituted by
that common letter.
**************
**************
Based on Your submitted chain, I conclude that, in §2 "No letter may
occupy the same position that it did in the previous turn", "letter"
= temporarily allotted alphabetic character. (Sounds pedantic, but
please be patient.) Thus §2 (in present form) applies also to pairs
(and any clusters) of identical characters in a link:
loot-alto is legal
loot-otto " "
loot-told " illegal, even considering the 2 o:s to be recast
loot-solo " " " " " " " " " "
loot-obol " " " " " " " " " "
loot-fool " " " " " " " " " "
This I call *version 1.5 Alpha*, and under it [gnat-nags] is legal in
that letter "a" is moved from position 3 to 2.
Cf. Your own [TANK-ante].
So why would I say they violate §2?
Well, in both cases the albeit changed letter KEEPS ITS POSITION -
which iMHO should be illegal, considering obligatory rearrangement.
It pends on the § use of the term "letter".
New term: "String" = A string connecting 1 of the doublet's initial
letters with 1 of its final ones. The string has 2 values, letter &
position, making it possible to backtrace an entire solution.
This allows for the rules to be rewritten in a way that preserves the
original meaning, but loses ambiguity:
**************
DoubleTank 1.5 Alpha
**************
§1 1 letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No string may keep both letter & position from the previous
turn.
§3 Where doublets have letters in common, those letters must not
be connected by the same string.
**************
**************
(§3 also reinstates Your original "reincarnation" intent, making my 7-
pointer (AaaaeuuA) illegal.)
Now consider
**************
DoubleTank 1.5 Beta
**************
§1 1 letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No string may keep position from the previous turn.
§3 Where doublets have letters in common, those letters must not
be connected by the same string.
**************
**************
For Beta, the example from above renders:
loot-alto is legal
loot-otto " "
loot-told " " considering an o recast (from
position 2 to 4)
loot-solo " " " both o:s recast (2-4, 3-2)
loot-obol " " " " " " (2-3, 3-1)
loot-fool " " " " " " (2-3, 3-2)
The fact that all steps here become legal is not meant to reflect any
general difference in level of difficulty between the 2 approaches;
The aforementioned step [gnat-nags] becomes illegal in that
letter "t", though changed, keeps 4th position as "s".
Cf. Your [TANK-ante]: "K" keeps 4th as "e".
Your recent chain
My beta goes:
TANK
neat
tale
egal
gala
FLAG
(AaaaaF, KeeeaA)
We should now decide on whom to become the Neanderthal.
You have 6 pts for Your chain [DT 1.5 alpha] & I have 5 pts.
Your chain is viable in [DT 1.5 Beta], and will give You 6 pts for a
total of 12, should You not try to have another go at it/them. I have
also 5 pts from my other chain [DT 1.5 beta], for a sum of 10. I
think beta is the preferable one. Please give it some thought; Should
we not agree, then the winner by lowest sum gets the decision for [DT
2.0] - and if it is a final draw, we will throw the whole konkarong
Down the Drain...
any foul play, I would like to add to whatever version wins, that
repetition of words & even series of words within the chain is
permitted, provided they are not made up from the same letters. ;D
That is:
§28.7 No configuration of strings with their values may repeat.
Head high!
ChD
P.S.
Familiar with Your fellow norse squirrel Ratatosk? Now that one
should know curses!
disposition and organization of the material would have to be ready
when the actual work should begin, and all one asks is: Which is the
actual work?"
(Thomas Mann: Doktor Faustus)
> It was not my original intention to permit you to change 'A'Oh I did not try for a loophole, but thought from §3 that I had to go
> to 'E' then to 'U' then back to 'A' but, of course, you have not
> violated any rule as written.
that way. See below.
> My riposte:Great move - "but I didn't tell You that I'm not left-handed".
>
> TANK
> neat
> tale
> left
> flue
> gulf
> FLAG
>
> (Aaa-fffF / Tttt-uu-A)
Doublé:
TANK
gnat
nags
slag
gala
FLAG
(AaaaaF, TtssaA)
...& touché! ;D)))
(Mark: "By Ratatosk's tufts...!")
[Scene shifts. Some days earlier:]
> I can hopefully illustrate these rules a little better by applyingNeat feat, Mark!
> them to your original challenge:
>
> TANK
> ante
> seat
> arts
> oast
> stow
> owls
> bowl
> flow
> golf
> FLAG
-But, hrmm... "ante" violates §2.
Or does it? This is what caused my delay. As of present, we have:
**************
DoubleTank 1.0
**************
§1 One (and only one) letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No letter may occupy the same position that it did in the
previous turn.
§3 Where the Doublets have letters in common, those letters
cannot be retained during the entire chain - they must be swapped out
(and back) at some point. Furthermore, the letter substituted for the
one in common cannot be the one that is subsequently resubstituted by
that common letter.
**************
**************
Based on Your submitted chain, I conclude that, in §2 "No letter may
occupy the same position that it did in the previous turn", "letter"
= temporarily allotted alphabetic character. (Sounds pedantic, but
please be patient.) Thus §2 (in present form) applies also to pairs
(and any clusters) of identical characters in a link:
loot-alto is legal
loot-otto " "
loot-told " illegal, even considering the 2 o:s to be recast
loot-solo " " " " " " " " " "
loot-obol " " " " " " " " " "
loot-fool " " " " " " " " " "
This I call *version 1.5 Alpha*, and under it [gnat-nags] is legal in
that letter "a" is moved from position 3 to 2.
Cf. Your own [TANK-ante].
So why would I say they violate §2?
Well, in both cases the albeit changed letter KEEPS ITS POSITION -
which iMHO should be illegal, considering obligatory rearrangement.
It pends on the § use of the term "letter".
New term: "String" = A string connecting 1 of the doublet's initial
letters with 1 of its final ones. The string has 2 values, letter &
position, making it possible to backtrace an entire solution.
This allows for the rules to be rewritten in a way that preserves the
original meaning, but loses ambiguity:
**************
DoubleTank 1.5 Alpha
**************
§1 1 letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No string may keep both letter & position from the previous
turn.
§3 Where doublets have letters in common, those letters must not
be connected by the same string.
**************
**************
(§3 also reinstates Your original "reincarnation" intent, making my 7-
pointer (AaaaeuuA) illegal.)
Now consider
**************
DoubleTank 1.5 Beta
**************
§1 1 letter is to be changed at each turn.
§2 No string may keep position from the previous turn.
§3 Where doublets have letters in common, those letters must not
be connected by the same string.
**************
**************
For Beta, the example from above renders:
loot-alto is legal
loot-otto " "
loot-told " " considering an o recast (from
position 2 to 4)
loot-solo " " " both o:s recast (2-4, 3-2)
loot-obol " " " " " " (2-3, 3-1)
loot-fool " " " " " " (2-3, 3-2)
The fact that all steps here become legal is not meant to reflect any
general difference in level of difficulty between the 2 approaches;
The aforementioned step [gnat-nags] becomes illegal in that
letter "t", though changed, keeps 4th position as "s".
Cf. Your [TANK-ante]: "K" keeps 4th as "e".
Your recent chain
> TANKis, as it happens, alpha-beta amphibious. Worth a cone or 2!
> neat
> tale
> left
> flue
> gulf
> FLAG
> (Aaa-fffF / Tttt-uu-A)
My beta goes:
TANK
neat
tale
egal
gala
FLAG
(AaaaaF, KeeeaA)
We should now decide on whom to become the Neanderthal.
You have 6 pts for Your chain [DT 1.5 alpha] & I have 5 pts.
Your chain is viable in [DT 1.5 Beta], and will give You 6 pts for a
total of 12, should You not try to have another go at it/them. I have
also 5 pts from my other chain [DT 1.5 beta], for a sum of 10. I
think beta is the preferable one. Please give it some thought; Should
we not agree, then the winner by lowest sum gets the decision for [DT
2.0] - and if it is a final draw, we will throw the whole konkarong
Down the Drain...
> No evolution is desired nor warranted, so...The above is not evolution, but definition. However, just to prevent
any foul play, I would like to add to whatever version wins, that
repetition of words & even series of words within the chain is
permitted, provided they are not made up from the same letters. ;D
That is:
§28.7 No configuration of strings with their values may repeat.
Head high!
ChD
P.S.
Familiar with Your fellow norse squirrel Ratatosk? Now that one
should know curses!