Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Proposal: Atoms FTW (bis)

Can’t be enacted at 0-7. — Quirck

Adminned at 11 Jun 2013 23:38:27 UTC

Add a dynastic rule called “Atom, prove thyself” and give it the following text

Every Atom by itself is a well-formed formula. Once the first proof of a well-formed formula consisting solely of an Atom is established, then that Atom shall win.


Our deduction rules will probably be such that this includes win by contradiction. The first one to prove a contradiction just goes on to prove his own Atom for the win.



06-11-2013 05:18:24 UTC

I’m not sure I fully understand. What prevents someone from using Atom -> Atom and winning?


06-11-2013 05:45:34 UTC

Well, perhaps I messed up again, but, to me “kikar -> kikar” doesn’t “consist solely of an atom”. I see two atoms not to mention a connective in there.

Ienpw III:

06-11-2013 05:55:25 UTC

against for the simple reason that early victory conditions tend to lead to early victories. I do really like this as a victory condition, though.


06-11-2013 06:00:37 UTC


Shall win sounds like if that Atom doesn’t win, he violates the rules. But he hasn’t achieved victory yet :)


06-11-2013 06:01:54 UTC

against I suggest getting it more established just on the basis that early game tends to have more loopholes to exploit and that may assist in causing, as Ienpw III suggested, an unpleasantly early victory.

Ienpw III:

06-11-2013 06:27:12 UTC

“Shall win sounds like if that Atom doesn’t win, he violates the rules. But he hasn’t achieved victory yet :)”

Not sure this holds true.. I’m not sure if it’s legally possible for the rules to be violated.


06-11-2013 06:31:10 UTC



06-11-2013 06:36:47 UTC

So, what then, no winning before 9 am on a weekday? Noon on weekends?


06-11-2013 14:27:55 UTC

against We like to play with it for a while first.


06-11-2013 15:52:27 UTC



06-11-2013 20:10:33 UTC



06-12-2013 06:27:05 UTC

You are idle according to the sidebar, but I don’t see why you would be based on your posts. Is this even legal?