On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > From: John Kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > So what you are saying is that it is utterly impossible for anyone
> > to notice any patterns without being given explicit instructions:
>
> You've confused "items in a set" with "items in a pattern". There are
> items in the set of humanoid who advance by class. That does not mean
> that the pattern "creatures that advance by class are humanoid by
> default" is accurate. There are not enough data points available to
> draw that conclusion. The missing data point would be a rule that said
> "characters that advance by class are huamanoid by default". Absent
> that rule, all you have is a coincidence.
Right!! That's exactly what I said. So if I give the sequence,
(A1,B1,C1,D1,E1,F1,G1), that is only seven data points -- which according
to you is clearly not enough to establish a pattern. Rather, it is
just a coincidence. There is no way to guess the next step in this
sequence unless you have a rule which said "the list is formed by
taking the letters of the alphabet in order and appending the numeral
one to each of them" (or unless you break into my computer and steal
my intellectual property by copying the list from my files).
- John
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
