Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Separations in Conway Notation and Analysis of n=7
Posted:
Jan 19, 1999 4:21 PM


In the final line of your earlier message I think you placed the separated dots at the end, e.g. 5(9@6)4/2,3 . I thought this arrangement was very apt since it is the entire move, not just the generated dot, which effects the separation. Actually, I thought about asking you if we could include a closing "/", since then we could delimit moves by commas without risking confusion and because having the separated dots bracketed in this manner gives a nice sense of enclosure. The previous example would then be 5(9@6)4/2,3/ . I much prefer your suggestion of listing only one group of separated dots. The dots to be listed can then be selected with poetic laconicism. But let me know your final opinion on these matters. I will use whatever you say is best.
Based upon your doubts, I would guess that there are gaping holes and other errors in my analysis of n=7. I only spent a few hours on it. This analysis is in my previous message entitled "Sprouts Notation  Examples", which I posted yesterday. (I wrote it, of course, using the oldstyle notation, since the new notation had not been invented yet. (There is one error I already know about. I mislabeled the misere line with an "N" instead of an "O".) ) I will reexamine this analysis and do my best to correct it. Any suggestions would be helpful. In a few days I hope to post a revision of the analysis translated into the new notation. (If upon reexamination n=7 proves too complex, I will only go through n=6.)



