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 old-style 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 re-examine 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 re-examination n=7 proves
too complex, I will only go through n=6.)
|
|
|
|
