Say pieces on a board, make each a pair with another piece.
like...
|55|44|66| |44|66|55|
so figure out how a piece can move.
pick any piece, try to move it somewhere. when you move a piece you have to move it's pair at the same time. when you move to a piece it's pair has to move at the same time too. a piece always becomes a pair with the piece it moves to. no matter how many pairs, there's only one answer to how a piece can move.
A common problem, I forget what it's called.
There's only one answer for how any piece can move.
A piece always goes where a piece leaves.
No piece can move to where a piece moves back where it came from.
No such thing as a free space, a piece always moves to another piece.
A pair never moves to a pair.
so try this...
draw for each piece a line from one piece to another that connects each piece to move from the first piece until the last piece that goes back where it starts.
see this as a machine diagram.
move a piece then figure the machine diagram again, it's the same machine.
> pair at the same time. > when you move to a piece it's pair has to move at the same time too. > a piece always becomes a pair with the piece it moves to. > no matter how many pairs, there's only one answer to how a piece can > move.
> A common problem, I forget what it's called.
> There's only one answer for how any piece can move.
> A piece always goes where a piece leaves.
> No piece can move to where a piece moves back where it came from.
> No such thing as a free space, a piece always moves to another piece.
> A pair never moves to a pair.
> so try this...
> draw for each piece a line from one piece to another that connects > each piece to move from the first piece until the last piece that goes > back where it starts.
> see this as a machine diagram.
> move a piece then figure the machine diagram again, it's the same > machine.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:28:14 -0500, Jon Slaughter wrote: > "Ray Vickson" ... wrote ... >> On Jul 23, 11:33 am, mcjason <mcja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Say pieces on a board, make each a pair with another piece.
>>> like...
>>> |55|44|66| >>> |44|66|55|
>>> so figure out how a piece can move.
>>> pick any piece, try to move it somewhere. when you move a piece you >>> have to move it's
>> Possessive form of "it" is "its". The form "it's" is short for "it is".
>> R.G. Vickson
> Well aren't you a freaken genius!!! and took all that time to reply to > his question!! AMAZING!! YOUR A GOD!
First, perhaps you meant to use the contraction "you're" instead of the possessive"your"; that is, to say "YOU'RE A GOD!", which means "YOU ARE A GOD!", rather than "YOUR A GOD!" which in English is not a meaningful phrase.
Second, Vickson's reply followed McJason's post by about 2 hours, so your "all that time" comment is lame, given that you took 3 hours to reply to Vickson's post.
Third, McJason didn't ask a question. He or she apparently wants to present some kind of model for a machine or automaton but in posts so far has been somewhat incoherent and inconsistent and hasn't clearly described the ideas or rules the machine obeys.
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:28:14 -0500, Jon Slaughter wrote: > > "Ray Vickson" ... wrote ... > >> On Jul 23, 11:33 am, mcjason <mcja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Say pieces on a board, make each a pair with another piece.
> >>> like...
> >>> |55|44|66| > >>> |44|66|55|
> >>> so figure out how a piece can move.
> >>> pick any piece, try to move it somewhere. when you move a piece you > >>> have to move it's
> >> Possessive form of "it" is "its". The form "it's" is short for "it is".
> >> R.G. Vickson
> > Well aren't you a freaken genius!!! and took all that time to reply to > > his question!! AMAZING!! YOUR A GOD!
> First, perhaps you meant to use the contraction "you're" instead > of the possessive"your"; that is, to say "YOU'RE A GOD!", which > means "YOU ARE A GOD!", rather than "YOUR A GOD!" which in English > is not a meaningful phrase.
> Second, Vickson's reply followed McJason's post by about 2 hours, > so your "all that time" comment is lame, given that you took 3 > hours to reply to Vickson's post.
> Third, McJason didn't ask a question. He or she apparently wants > to present some kind of model for a machine or automaton but in > posts so far has been somewhat incoherent and inconsistent and > hasn't clearly described the ideas or rules the machine obeys.
> -jiw- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I meant to improve this...
Say pieces on a board, make each piece a pair with another piece.
like...
|55|33|66| |44|66|55| |33|44|22| |22|11|11|
a piece can only be figured out to move one way...
pick any piece, try to move it somewhere...
have the chosen piece move to another piece, it moves there and makes the other piece have to move too.
when a piece is moved to another piece, it becomes a pair with the piece it moves to. any piece that is moved has to have it's pair move at the same time.
any piece to move to another piece is a piece that moved at the same time as it's pair, and moved to another piece that
moved at the same time as it's pair too. A piece that moves to another piece becomes a pair with it, and the other of the pair has moved to become a pair with another piece.
try anyway, works in one way where a piece can move back to the piece to move first.
A common type of problem, I forget what it's called.
A piece always goes where a piece leaves, the first piece has the last piece go where it left.
You can't move a piece that moves where the piece came from.
There is no such thing as a free space, a piece always moves to another piece.
A pair never moves to a pair.
A piece works out to move where another piece can get back to where a piece moves from.
The last move has to be known for the first move to be made, because the first move can't be understood until the last move is. That's because the first move is where a piece moves to and it works around to the last move, and the last move is where a piece can work getting to from the first move.
so try this...
draw for each piece a line that shows each piece that moves to another piece for the way that piece can move. A line should show a piece that moves back to the piece started from. See each piece and pieces involved in moving for that piece as a machine part. A machine part is a connected condition where there's a dependency on one condition for another condition.
see this as a machine diagram.
move a piece then figure the machine diagram again, it's the same machine though...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:24:16 -0700, mcjason wrote: > On Jul 24, 12:01 am, James Waldby <n...@no.no> wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:28:14 -0500, Jon Slaughter wrote: >> > "Ray Vickson" ... wrote ... >> >> On Jul 23, 11:33 am, mcjason <mcja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Say pieces on a board, make each a pair with another piece. >> >>> like... >> >>> |55|44|66| >> >>> |44|66|55| [...] >> Third, McJason didn't ask a question. He or she apparently wants to >> present some kind of model for a machine or automaton but in posts so >> far has been somewhat incoherent and inconsistent and hasn't clearly >> described the ideas or rules the machine obeys. > I meant to improve this...
What you posted below has the same problems with incoherency and inconsistency as previous posts. I'll point out some examples:
> Say pieces on a board, make each piece a pair with another piece.
Incoherency: "piece" is not well-defined. If a piece is a pair of pieces, then a piece is a pair of a pair of pieces, which means a piece is a pair of a pair of a pair of pieces, ad infinitum.
Instead say something like "Let p_k (for k=1 to 6) be pieces on a board that has 12 cells c_ij, and let each piece p consist of two cells a and b, that is, p = (a,b)", if you mean that a "piece" is two cells and a "pair" is two cells (which may be inconsistent with your later usage of "pair").
[...]
> when a piece is moved to another piece, it becomes a pair with > the piece it moves to.
Incoherency: In the paragraph above, "pair" is undefined and "piece" refers unclearly to two different objects. If you have labels for things, you can say (eg) "When piece p_1 is moved to the location of piece p_2, it becomes a pair p_n with p_2," although you haven't said what it means for two pairs p_1 and p_2 to form a new pair p_n and haven't defined "pair".
> any piece to move to another piece is a piece that moved at the same > time as it's pair, and moved to another piece that > moved at the same time as it's pair too. A piece that moves to another > piece becomes a pair with it, and the other of the pair has moved to > become a pair with another piece.
Incoherency: In this paragraph, "piece" and "pair" each refer to so many different objects that it isn't clear what you mean. Using labels will help sort things out. You haven't indicated what "the other of the pair" might mean, and need to define "pair" and "the other of the pair".
[...]
> A pair never moves to a pair.
Inconsistency or Incoherency. "pair" is undefined, and it isn't obvious whether you mean "piece" or "pair". If you mean that pieces can't move, that would be inconsistent with earlier conditions. Perhaps you mean: "Given a piece p in cells (a,b), if p moves to (e,f), then (e,f) is a new piece." But that would be inconsistent with your earlier condition re "when a piece is moved to another piece, it becomes a pair".
