|
Grex > Language > #114: The seven letter word game, 3rd edition |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 1021 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 450 of 1021:
| 
May 17 14:16 UTC 2002 |
Not much action here in the letter-match items. gelinas? albaugh? Anyone?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 451 of 1021:
|
May 18 04:11 UTC 2002 |
Sorry; it's been a little rough concentrating on anything this past week.
Let's try
lifting
|
aruba
|
|
response 452 of 1021:
|
May 18 04:43 UTC 2002 |
lifting 2 (gelinas)
|
kentn
|
|
response 453 of 1021:
|
May 18 21:34 UTC 2002 |
giddily (In a giddy manner)
|
aruba
|
|
response 454 of 1021:
|
May 19 00:28 UTC 2002 |
giddily 3 (kentn)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 455 of 1021:
|
May 21 04:44 UTC 2002 |
gilding
|
aruba
|
|
response 456 of 1021:
|
May 21 14:06 UTC 2002 |
gilding 2 (gelinas)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 457 of 1021:
|
May 22 21:50 UTC 2002 |
gelding
|
aruba
|
|
response 458 of 1021:
|
May 23 14:03 UTC 2002 |
gelding 1 (albaugh)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 459 of 1021:
|
May 24 00:18 UTC 2002 |
repaint
|
aruba
|
|
response 460 of 1021:
|
May 24 18:16 UTC 2002 |
repaint 1 (gelinas)
|
brighn
|
|
response 461 of 1021:
|
May 28 16:15 UTC 2002 |
pencils
|
aruba
|
|
response 462 of 1021:
|
May 28 21:12 UTC 2002 |
pencils 1 (brighn)
|
kentn
|
|
response 463 of 1021:
|
May 30 04:03 UTC 2002 |
sheriff
|
aruba
|
|
response 464 of 1021:
|
May 30 15:54 UTC 2002 |
sheriff 3 (kentn)
|
brighn
|
|
response 465 of 1021:
|
May 30 20:24 UTC 2002 |
vitrify (to convert into glass or a glassy substance by heat and fusion, M-W)
|
aruba
|
|
response 466 of 1021:
|
May 30 21:50 UTC 2002 |
vitrify 7 (brighn)
Brighn's up!
|
brighn
|
|
response 467 of 1021:
|
May 31 03:42 UTC 2002 |
Not surprisingly, the seven letter word I'm thinking of is not:
vitrify 0 (lastword)
|
brighn
|
|
response 468 of 1021:
|
May 31 04:38 UTC 2002 |
(I've put the proof for vitrify as the sole remaining possibility in a file
on my directory called vitrify, if anyone's interested.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 469 of 1021:
|
May 31 15:08 UTC 2002 |
That's not a proof. You assumed that you had a list of all possible words,
and there is no one source from which all valid words must come.
referee
|
brighn
|
|
response 470 of 1021:
|
May 31 16:48 UTC 2002 |
Proofs can have assumptions, but if you want to argue semantics, by "proof"
I meant, "How I concluded that the correct word was 'vitrify'." The assumption
that I've repeated numerous times is, "The solution word is available in
OneLook," an assumption that (I believe) has yet to fail me. Counterevidence
to the proof would be a word that satisfies the rules other than "vitrify."
Or, if you prefer, I'll just modify "proof" to "demonstration" in #468.
referee 0 (aruba)
|
aruba
|
|
response 471 of 1021:
|
May 31 18:23 UTC 2002 |
It's neither a proof nor a demonstration that the word was vitrify. There
wasn't enough evidence to do either.
|
brighn
|
|
response 472 of 1021:
|
May 31 19:30 UTC 2002 |
What other words would have fit the set of clues?
|
aruba
|
|
response 473 of 1021:
|
May 31 20:40 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure you understand what a proof is; you can't say "I proved it
because no one can find a counterexample". It's not up to anyone else to
do that - if you prove something, you have to make sure there can't
*possibly* be a counterexample.
And BTW, your logic in that file has at least a couple flaws. You thought
you had eliminated words of the form -id-iff, but you can't, and you
neglected to eliminate -ieri-y and -ie-ify, even though they are clearly
wrong, since unearth got a 0.
|
brighn
|
|
response 474 of 1021:
|
May 31 21:22 UTC 2002 |
I know what a scientific proof is, which is why I suggested that you're
picking semantic nits but accepted "demonstration" instead. To my knowledge,
"demonstration" does not have the rigorous definition that "proof" does.
Why are you getting weird about this? I'm off the mood to just reveal my
current games and leave off. I'm trying to have some fun, and yes, I'm trying
to show off how I came to the conclusions that I did, because I'm proud that
I worked it out. I'm sorry that I used one word in a way that you didn't like,
and you feel compelled to go postal about it.
|