On Apr 15, 3:53 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:08 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > But, if one is working with Chess Variants, then the issue does
> > arise that if the number of variants is finite, then you can have a
> > classification system in place that could capture them all, and even
> > simplify, and perhaps bridge them.
>
> I think that one can always go 'outside the system' and come up with a
> reasonable new Chess variant that is not included in any
> classification system, even if that system embraces an infinite number
> of variants.
>
> Yet, the fact that people can only handle games up to a certain finite
> level of complexity means that the number of Chess variants is finite.
>
> A large, but poorly-defined finite set, therefore, can behave for
> practical purposes as if it had properties that, in an exact
> mathematical sense, can only apply to a set with at least aleph-one
> elements. This doesn't defy any law of mathematics (and, indeed, due
> to the subject matter, I've pulled sci.math back in, since it's
> relevant now).
>
> John Savard
So, then, to make this more mathematical, are the number of rules
variants for a game like chess an Aleph of any sort? I will re: this
topic to have it ask that. Maybe someone else who is more math(y) in
their knowledge could frame this in a more mathematically proper form.
- Rich
|
