[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
prentos at the.forthnet.gr
Tue Jan 5 18:57:35 EST 2010
The author's intention was "3 variants" but I somehow changed it to "3
solutions" when I was preparing the diagrams.
It doesn't make much difference as far as I understand it, but I think it is
only fair that the original wording of the author is restored.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Begley" <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
To: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" <retros at janko.at>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
>I see your point, Joost...
> ...and it is a good one.
> However, the analysis is rather nuanced... mine is a technical point...
> I don't want to debate it too much, given that it would be improper to
> delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has
> active solvers), but I nevertheless claim there are 3 variants (and 3
> solutions is probably the wrong wording).
> On 1/5/10, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Op 5-1-2010 23:00, Kevin Begley schreef:
>> > R0154 seems to have been slightly misprinted...
>> > It should read "3 variants" or "3 unique variants" but not
>> > "3.1.1..." (which, I believe, implies 3 solutions).
>> The printed text says '3 sols.'.
>> 3.1.1... is a numerical representation of the solution tree (solution
>> starts with 3 branches, each of these has 1 level-2 sub-branch, each
>> sub-branch has one level-3 sub-branch, etc). So IMO, this notation is
>> correct even with AP problems (the solution tree has 3 starting branches,
>> each of which is validated in a later sub-branch). The notation doesn't
>> imply that all solutions are possible at the same time in the
>> Retros mailing list
>> Retros at janko.at
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros