RJ signing (spoilers)
Brian Douglas Ritchie
There are spoilers ahead.
This is your last warning.
I just got back from Charleston. I got answers, kinda, to two big questions.
1. RJ wrote the Mat/Tylin scenario as a humorous role-reversal thing.
His editor, and wife, thought it was a good discussion of sexual
harassment and rape with comic undertones. She liked it because it dealt
with very serious issues in a humorous way. She seemed to think it would
be a good way to explain to men/boys what this can be like for
women/girls, showing the fear, etc.
2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
number of women for each man, is always divisible by three. RJ thought
that there was an error in the LoC glossary and that it had been fixed in
ACoS. Some possibilities I thought of are:
M W T W T W T
0 13 13
1 26 27
2 37 39 34 36 43 45
3 48 51 42 45 51 54
4 56 60 50 54 56 60
5 61 66 58 63 61 66
6 66 72 66 72 66 72
He gave the following answers to questions from various people.
His opinion of newsgroup FAQ's he has read are so-so. First, he gets
them from several groups he says. Us and the alt group and ??? He says
the FAQ's are about 1/3 correct, 1/3 close but not quite and 1/3 wrong.
He feels that some things that are obvious to the casual reader have been
overanalysed and led to incorrect conclusions. I don't know if he has
read the latest version of our FAQ and if it was better than the above
stats.
All the women are based in part on his wife. Many women have been amazed
that he was not a woman using a male pen name because he writes women so
well. He just wrote them as he thought women would be if men had destroyed
the world 3000 years ago. Obviously, their roles would be much different
than they are in our society. The women are not based on Southern women
in general, just his wife.
There will be a few more books, some, not a lot,
hopefully fewer than seven more.
He knows the final scene of the last book, all the major events he wants
to have happen and who will live and who will die. When he starts a book,
he decides which of these events he wants to try to do and then writes it
so they happen.
He will tie up all the major plot lines, but will leave a lot of the minor
ones unresolved. He finds it too unrealistic for a series to end with all
of life's problems solved. Expect the series to end with the major
problems solved, but a lot of people will still have tumultuous lives
ahead of them.
The universe is driven by saidin and saidar working against each other.
They will not end up as the Light Power.
He may or may not give a Lan POV. The POV is usually determined by the
slant he wants to give to the information. Sometimes he plans for one
character to have the POV, but has to switch to another.
He made the Aiel look Irish because he thought it was kind of funny. He
doesn't like the fact that hardened desert warriors are always described
as looking a certain way, so he used the opposite description.
He intentionally started the series out kind of Tolkienesque, so that
readers would feel like they already knew the land somewhat. Then he
delibrately deviated from Tolkien so the readers would not know what to
expect. He tried to avoid too much Arthurian and Celtic mythologic
references early on because they are so well known.
He talked a little about his next series, Shipwrecked. It will be in a
different universe, and focuses ona group of shipwrecked people (surprise,
surprise). They come from a land with many countries, but basically all
ruled by one religion that dominates everywhere. The new place has three
powerful countries, but temples to hundreds of different gods and
goddesses. It's going to talk a lot about culture shock I think.
He can be reached either by either email or snailmail through Tor in about
the same amount of time. Tor prints out his emails and sends him the
hardcopies about every fortnight. They also send his snailmail biweekly.
He does respond to them, but he gets backlogged at the end of writing a book.
Here is the rough time schedule for book eight. The manuscript should be
turned in sometime in fall of 1997. Expect it to go on sale in spring of
1998. He worked 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 months, except for
a couple days for each Thanksgiving and Christmas and a few single
vacation days, to write ACoS. PNH, his wife, and everyone he knows told
him he needs to slow down so he doesn't kill himself. Thus, PNH gave him
18 months to do the manuscript.
His wife said he is the only author she allows to submit partial
manuscripts for editing. She also does Morgan Llewelyn, the Bears and
David Drake among others. She said she was starting to reduce the number
of authors she edits since she is overloaded. She edited one of RJ's
books before they ever dated, so their professional relationship was
already established before they married. She feels that mutual respect
for the other's work is what keeps the two relationships from interfering
with each other.
I think that's all that was said of any significance. The rest was personal
info that I don't think is important here, and I'm not sure a lot of this
was either. BTW, both Mr. and Mrs. RJ are very friendly, outgoing people
and were fun to talk with.
Am I the only one that thinks he looks like an older Bayle Domon?
This could lead to some interesting speculations. From his web site picture,
I'd say Novak might be related.
--
------------------------
Brian Ritchie
gt8...@prism.gatech.edu
Dylan Flynn Alexander
In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
}There are spoilers ahead.
}This is your last warning.
}
}I just got back from Charleston. I got answers, kinda, to two big questions.
}
}1. RJ wrote the Mat/Tylin scenario as a humorous role-reversal thing.
}His editor, and wife, thought it was a good discussion of sexual
}harassment and rape with comic undertones. She liked it because it dealt
}with very serious issues in a humorous way. She seemed to think it would
}be a good way to explain to men/boys what this can be like for
}women/girls, showing the fear, etc.
More or less what I thought. This was my first reaction to it. I didn't
even consider rape until someone on rasfwrj suggested. Of course, I never
thought T = D until I read the FAQ, too.
}2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
}number of women for each man, is always divisible by three. RJ thought
}that there was an error in the LoC glossary and that it had been fixed in
}ACoS. Some possibilities I thought of are:
}
}M W T W T W T
}0 13 13
}1 26 27
}2 37 39 34 36 43 45
}3 48 51 42 45 51 54
}4 56 60 50 54 56 60
}5 61 66 58 63 61 66
}6 66 72 66 72 66 72
}
I'm betting on the middle solution. The LOC glossary suggests this pattern,
and if one assumes the only mistakes were the thousand and one exceptions
he included in ACOS, this works nicely.
}He gave the following answers to questions from various people.
}
}His opinion of newsgroup FAQ's he has read are so-so. First, he gets
}them from several groups he says. Us and the alt group and ???
Fan clubs?
}He says
}the FAQ's are about 1/3 correct, 1/3 close but not quite and 1/3 wrong.
}He feels that some things that are obvious to the casual reader have been
}overanalysed and led to incorrect conclusions. I don't know if he has
}read the latest version of our FAQ and if it was better than the above
}stats.
He's right, obvious stuff is overanalyzed. Witness the Oath Rod/Agelessness
debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
}All the women are based in part on his wife. Many women have been amazed
}that he was not a woman using a male pen name because he writes women so
}well. He just wrote them as he thought women would be if men had destroyed
}the world 3000 years ago. Obviously, their roles would be much different
}than they are in our society. The women are not based on Southern women
}in general, just his wife.
Ick.
}There will be a few more books, some, not a lot,
}hopefully fewer than seven more.
Does he carry a handout with this on it?
}He knows the final scene of the last book, all the major events he wants
}to have happen and who will live and who will die. When he starts a book,
}he decides which of these events he wants to try to do and then writes it
}so they happen.
He really needs a tee shirt. "Hi, I'm Robert Jordan, and I know what
the final scene will be....."
}He will tie up all the major plot lines, but will leave a lot of the minor
}ones unresolved. He finds it too unrealistic for a series to end with all
}of life's problems solved. Expect the series to end with the major
}problems solved, but a lot of people will still have tumultuous lives
}ahead of them.
"I've added so many uneccesary plot threads I'd make exponentially more
contradictions in my work if I tried to clean up my mess."
}The universe is driven by saidin and saidar working against each other.
}They will not end up as the Light Power.
No one with any sense thought differently.
}He intentionally started the series out kind of Tolkienesque, so that
}readers would feel like they already knew the land somewhat. Then he
}delibrately deviated from Tolkien so the readers would not know what to
}expect.
More handout material.
}He talked a little about his next series, Shipwrecked. It will be in a
}different universe, and focuses ona group of shipwrecked people (surprise,
}surprise). They come from a land with many countries, but basically all
}ruled by one religion that dominates everywhere. The new place has three
}powerful countries, but temples to hundreds of different gods and
}goddesses. It's going to talk a lot about culture shock I think.
Does he really think he'll live that long?
--
Dylan Flynn Alexander
dy...@tamu.edu
P.T. Korda
In article <dylan-22069...@ppp19-13.rns.tamu.edu>,
Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
>Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
>
>}There are spoilers ahead.
>}This is your last warning.
>}1. RJ wrote the Mat/Tylin scenario as a humorous role-reversal thing.
>}His editor, and wife, thought it was a good discussion of sexual
>}harassment and rape with comic undertones. She liked it because it dealt
>}with very serious issues in a humorous way. She seemed to think it would
>}be a good way to explain to men/boys what this can be like for
>}women/girls, showing the fear, etc.
So, you're saying that they wrote it to be confusing as to the intent?
Wunderbar.
[FAQs]
>}He says
>}the FAQ's are about 1/3 correct, 1/3 close but not quite and 1/3 wrong.
IMO, he pulls this figure out of his ass. The way MY FAQ is set up,
some of the parts are just compilations/enumerations of stuff which is
explicitly stated in the book, and thus has to be right, and the other
parts contain argument for and against various propositions.
Taim is Demandred, or Taim is not Demandred. Either way, that section
is only going to be 50% right.
>}The universe is driven by saidin and saidar working against each other.
>}They will not end up as the Light Power.
>
>No one with any sense thought differently.
Dylan, son, you should know by now that Usenet is full of
sense-deficient people.
-pam
"Horn swoop me bungo pony I dogsled on ice"
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
>: Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
>:
>: }There are spoilers ahead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>: }He says
>: }the FAQ's are about 1/3 correct, 1/3 close but not quite and 1/3 wrong.
>: }He feels that some things that are obvious to the casual reader have been
>: }overanalysed and led to incorrect conclusions. I don't know if he has
>: }read the latest version of our FAQ and if it was better than the above
>: }stats.
>
>: He's right, obvious stuff is overanalyzed. Witness the Oath Rod/Agelessness
>: debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
>: killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
>: who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
>
Page 703.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Dylan Flynn Alexander
In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
(Timothy Bruening) wrote:
}: }There are spoilers ahead.
}Major munchage.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
p. 703
Timothy Bruening
: Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
:
: }There are spoilers ahead.
Major munchage.
: }He says
: }the FAQ's are about 1/3 correct, 1/3 close but not quite and 1/3 wrong.
: }He feels that some things that are obvious to the casual reader have been
: }overanalysed and led to incorrect conclusions. I don't know if he has
: }read the latest version of our FAQ and if it was better than the above
: }stats.
: He's right, obvious stuff is overanalyzed. Witness the Oath Rod/Agelessness
: debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
: killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
: who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
--
Timothy S. Bruening (tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us)
Davis Community Network
Brian Douglas Ritchie
I forgot a couple of things.
RJ seems to actually like the DKS covers. However, he disliked the cover
of one of his books that someone brought. (I believe it was the UK version
of TGH.) It was mostly light blue and lavender/purple. He disliked the
artwork, not just the color scheme.
There are spoilers ahead.
This is your last warning.
The short reign of Colavaere was not a reference to Jane Grey.
I think there was one more thing, but I seem to still be forgetting it.
Lara Beaton
ko...@midway.uchicago.edu (P.T. Korda) wrote:
>"Horn swoop me bungo pony I dogsled on ice"
Interesting .sig, you don't own a Newton, by any chance, do you?
**************************************************
Lara Beaton
Disclaimers are for wussies.
"the difference between Coke and Cherry Coke is like the
difference between sex, and sex with leather."
Brian Douglas Ritchie
Damn, I forgot a couple more things.
RJ has a lot of notes about the series although he doesn't have an
outline. He guesstimates he has about twice as many pages of notes as
manuscript pages.
There are spoilers ahead.
This is your last warning.
ACoS only covered a week because a lot of important things needed to
happen in a very short time span. The development of the heroes
characters is some of the important events he wanted to accomplish.
Timothy Bruening
Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
: Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: >Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
: >: Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
: >:
: >: }There are spoilers ahead.
: >Major munchage.
(Comments on FAQ accuracy munched)
: >: He's right, obvious stuff is overanalyzed. Witness the Oath Rod/Agelessness
: >: debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
: >: killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
: >: who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
: >
: >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
:
: Page 703.
But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <4qim38$5...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>: Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>: >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
>:
>: Page 703.
>
>But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
You need to get the Author's Special Edition, with the extra chapter at
the end. You can get it from Future Fantasy, but you actually have to go
there physically; they won't ship it. Directions to the store are on
their homepage: http://futfan.com/~gkt.html
Nathan Scott
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) writes:
> Dylan Flynn Alexander (dy...@tamu.edu) wrote:
> : In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
> : Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
> :
> : }There are spoilers ahead.
>
> Major munchage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> : debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
> : killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
> : who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
>
>
James R. Moore
Timothy Bruening wrote:
>
> Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
> : Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> : >: In article <4qg8bf$d...@acmey.gatech.edu>, gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian
> : >: Douglas Ritchie) wrote:
> : >:
> : >: }There are spoilers ahead.
> : >Major munchage.
>
> (Comments on FAQ accuracy munched)
>
> : >: debate (why do you think he clubbed us over the head with it?), who
> : >: killed Asmodean (Ditto, he maid it clear it was Alviarin in ACOS), and
> : >: who are the 'Gars (Gaidal Cain and female merchant Rand beheaded).
> : >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
> :
> : Page 703.
>
> But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
Nobody in this froup would ever troll. Would they?
Jimbo
JakOTShado
In article <4qirmo$g...@elaine36.Stanford.EDU>,
alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrea Lynn Leistra) writes:
>In article <4qim38$5...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>>Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>: In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>>: Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>: >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
>>:
>>: Page 703.
>>
>>But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
>
>You need to get the Author's Special Edition, with the extra chapter at
>the end. You can get it from Future Fantasy, but you actually have to go
>there physically; they won't ship it. Directions to the store are on
>their homepage: http://futfan.com/~gkt.html
<Gag>
<Splutter>
ROFLMAO.
That's rich.
Eric Saunders I "See, this is what
ELSau...@aol.com I you get for not
or I _having_ an
JakOT...@aol.com I education..."
Bill Garrett
tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Timothy Bruening) writes:
} Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
} : Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
} : >
} : >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
} : Page 703.
} But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
You must have one of those books with the last 3 chapters missing.
I saw a sign in the Barnes & Noble bookstore a few days ago that said
that many of these deficient copies of ACoS had been printed. The
mistake wasn't caught until after the books started selling. To
replace your faulty copy with the complete one, trade the book back
to your bookseller or send it to Tor Books along with a note explaining
why you'd like it replaced.
HTH.
Bill
--
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the
Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion."
-- U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, 11 June 1996
James Salcewicz
dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan Flynn Alexander) wrote:
>In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
>(Timothy Bruening) wrote:
>
>}: }There are spoilers ahead.
>
>}
>}
>}
>}
>}
>}
>}
>}
>}Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
>
I must say this was one sweet troll. Just out of curiosity how many
other people<besides myself>acutally got up to check their copy?
ShawnisGod
On 22 Jun 1996 03:45:51 -0400, Brian Ritchie wrote:
>Am I the only one that thinks he looks like an older Bayle Domon?
Actually, look at the description of Loial. The two look a lot alike. RJ's
a big guy - Loial's big. Loial's writing a book - RJ's writing several. I
think Loial is RJ, which may be one reason we've never seen a Loial POV.
-Shawn-
Timothy Bruening
: Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: >Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >: In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
:
:
:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
: >: >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
: >:
: >: Page 703.
: >
: >But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
:
: the end. You can get it from Future Fantasy, but you actually have to go
: there physically; they won't ship it. Directions to the store are on
: their homepage: http://futfan.com/~gkt.html
Why was the extra chapter eliminated from the edition sold to the general
public? Does that extra chapter show Mat meeting the Daughter of the
Nine Moons? Will that chapter be incorporated into book 8?
Paul Khangure
In an Age long past, an Age yet to come, Timothy Bruening wrote:
: Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: : >Andrea Lynn Leistra (alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : >: In article <4qi6dn$f...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
: : >: Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
: :
: :
: :
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: : >
: :
: : >: >Where in ACOS does it say that Alviarin killed Asmodean?
: : >:
: : >: Page 703.
: : >
: : >But I only see 684 pages in aCOS.
: :
: : You need to get the Author's Special Edition, with the extra chapter at
: : the end. You can get it from Future Fantasy, but you actually have to go
: : there physically; they won't ship it. Directions to the store are on
: : their homepage: http://futfan.com/~gkt.html
:
: Why was the extra chapter eliminated from the edition sold to the general
: public? Does that extra chapter show Mat meeting the Daughter of the
: Nine Moons? Will that chapter be incorporated into book 8?
The chapter was to be incorporated after the glossary, as the prologue of
book 8. However due to extremely heavy lobbying by Joe Shaw, it will not
be available to the general public until book 8 has been released.
Joe has been laying low to avoid the outrage that will occur, now that his
plot is revealed in its entirety.
Could someone who has the special edition post ... oops. That would be a
copyright violation. Forget it.
Paul "Moridin" Khangure
--
If you aren't living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
p...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/prk/
It is unsporting to engage in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.
If you can lay on the floor without holding on then you're not drunk.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Aaron Bergman <aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>John S. Novak, III (J...@cris.com) wrote:
>: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>
>9*3 = ?
It's that Engineer Math. You know, three is prime, five is prime, seven
is prime, nine is prime...
Michael K. Werle
Novak, III) wrote:
[munch other points]
>
>>2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
>>number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
>
>Howsa?
>
>No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Two men-- maximum is 36, as of aCoS. Three _does_ divide 36.
>Six men-- maximum is 72. Three divides 72.
>
>My books are at home, but those are the numbers given, right?
>Unless my memory is failing, something smells bad here.
>
[munch other points]
Quick!--Someone take away his calculator before he forgets how to add, too!
>John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
>http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
>The Humblest Man on the Net
_________________________________________________________________
"Use soft words and hard arguments." | Mike Werle (609) 258-9982
-- English proverb | mkw...@princeton.edu
"If you want truly to understand | 17 Spelman Hall
something, try to change it." | Princeton University
-- Kurt Lewin | Princeton, NJ 08544
Brad Johnson
:
: : >2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
: : >number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
: : Howsa?
: : No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
: : One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
: 9*3 = ?
Not base 13, it doesn't.
--bradj.
------------------------Nullus Oppidenda Est--------------------------
brad johnson (bgjo...@unix.amherst.edu) 'Disc, God, Country, Pork'
http://www.amherst.edu/~bgjohnso/ 'Chickens! No Cynics!'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ShawnisGod
> >: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13. >:
> One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide
> 27. > >9*3 = ?
>
> It's that Engineer Math. You know, three is prime, five is
> prime, seven is prime, nine is prime...
>
Yeah. If it's odd, must be prime, right? And even numbers aren't, so 2
must not be. Oh, yeah, and everything can be explained with integrals,
cosines, sequences, and lots of variables and Italian names.
(Don't get me wrong - it CAN. If I can find my math book I'll tell y'all
about the mathematician who used math to prove that 0=1. It works.
Somehow, from there, he used it to mathematically prove the existence of
God, who I think might not like being in the same category as Planck's
constant.)
A current Engineering student himself,
-Shawn-
Sok-Hyon Kang
RJ signing (spoilers) by John S. Novak, III@cris.
> >number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
>
>
> No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
> One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
> Six men-- maximum is 72. Three divides 72.
Last time I checked, three does divide into 27. I think.
> My books are at home, but those are the numbers given, right?
> Unless my memory is failing, something smells bad here.
Choice A, I believe.
Steven
Aaron Bergman
: (Don't get me wrong - it CAN. If I can find my math book I'll tell y'all
: about the mathematician who used math to prove that 0=1. It works.
: Somehow, from there, he used it to mathematically prove the existence of
: God, who I think might not like being in the same category as Planck's
: constant.)
Which proof 0=1 would this be? There are a bunch of them, you
know.
Aaron (Didn't we have a thread of them a loong while ago?)
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The CDA was overruled. Perhaps they have brains.
Alistair Young
>In article <4qsbso$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
>>: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>>
>
>It's that Engineer Math. You know, three is prime, five is prime, seven
>is prime, nine is prime...
ObMathematicianJoke: "Why is an engineer like a lemming?"
"They're both wooly and jump to unfortunate
conclusions."
Alistair
--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
e-mail: ava...@arkane.demon.co.uk http://www.bofh.net/~sloth
sl...@bofh.net
sl...@jurai.net Phone/Fax: +44 (1833) 638233 (24 hr.)
The opinions above ARE my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]
"Nihil non vidi. Nihil non feci. Nihil non fui." "Nisi sobris."
- Emperor Hadrian and Clupeus, Chelmsford 123
Robert Watson
Brad Johnson <bgjo...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>Aaron Bergman (aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
>: John S. Novak, III (J...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>: : No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>: : One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>: 9*3 = ?
>
>--bradj.
27 / 3 = B
13 13 13
Robert
--
Robert Watson
Motorola WDG, Richmond BC rwa...@mdd.comm.mot.com
Brian Douglas Ritchie
ShawnisGod <shawn...@aol.com> wrote:
>(Don't get me wrong - it CAN. If I can find my math book I'll tell y'all
>about the mathematician who used math to prove that 0=1. It works.
>Somehow, from there, he used it to mathematically prove the existence of
>God, who I think might not like being in the same category as Planck's
>constant.)
Shouldn't you know whether or not you like being in that category?
Jeff McGuirk
> In article <4qt258$a...@tom.amherst.edu>,
> Brad Johnson <bgjo...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
> >Aaron Bergman (aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
> >: John S. Novak, III (J...@cris.com) wrote:
> >
> >: : No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
> >: : One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>
> >: 9*3 = ?
> >
> >Not base 13, it doesn't.
>
> >--bradj.
>
> 27 / 3 = B
> 13 13 13
>
Are we talking English or metric units here?
----
Jeff
I didn't do it, you can't prove anything,
nobody saw me, and the sheep are liars.
Michael Nielsen
>Aaron Bergman (aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
>: John S. Novak, III (J...@cris.com) wrote:
>: : >number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
>
>: : Howsa?
>
>: : One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>
>: 9*3 = ?
>
>Not base 13, it doesn't.
Heh. 3 divides 27 in bases 10,13,16,19.... etc, and in no other bases.
Of course, John is an engineer, and may well have been working in octal.
--
Michael "reminded of Moghedian" Nielsen
http://tangelo.phys.unm.edu/~mnielsen/index.html
Mike Hoye
John S. Novak, III <J...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
John, my respect for you as an engineer has just gone right
down the toilet.
--
Mike Hoye
John W. Schwegler
John S. Novak, III (J...@cris.com) wrote:
: Howsa?
: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out that CPU, John. Last time I tried, 3 divides 27 pretty well.
: Two men-- maximum is 36, as of aCoS. Three _does_ divide 36.
: Six men-- maximum is 72. Three divides 72.
: My books are at home, but those are the numbers given, right?
: Unless my memory is failing, something smells bad here.
Maybe it was meant for the maximum for all cases with one man or
more involved? *shrug*
-john
--
______________________________________________________________________________
"Genius may have its limitations, | John Schwegler
but stupidity is not thus | Temple U. Auditory Research Dept.
handicapped." | jo...@flower.aud.temple.edu
- Elbert Hubbard | (215) 707-3687 FAX 707-3650
Keith Higginson
: >2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
: >number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
: Howsa?
: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
: Two men-- maximum is 36, as of aCoS. Three _does_ divide 36.
: Six men-- maximum is 72. Three divides 72.
That works if you consider that (ObNitpick) three does indeed divide
27. That, and if "the maximum number of women for each man" implies
that at least one man must be present.
I wonder if the maximum of six men linked with sixty-six women was
written for the sole purpose of incorporating another mystical number.
6:66 is the number of the beast, or the number of the biggest honkin
circle that could be made.
Am I wrong, or did it state in tEotW that there were "a hundred" linked
men and women that died to cleanse the Eye of the World? I easily
could have gotten that syntax mixed up, though.
--
Keith (kei...@eng2.uconn.edu)
"Frozen in that fatal climb,
But the Wheels of Time...
Just pass you by."
John S. Novak, III
>>No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>There is no man, so the rule doesn't apply.
Why, just because?
>>One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>You want to check your math on this one and get back to us?
Yeah, yeah, like I said, for some reason I was thinking 26 when I
wrote that. Not that 26 makes any sense in context.
--
John S. Novak, III
>>9*3 = ?
>It's that Engineer Math. You know, three is prime, five is prime, seven
>is prime, nine is prime...
...eleven is prime, thirteen is prime...
Admit it, it's a very efficient and time-saving mnemonic.
John S. Novak, III
>: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>9*3 = ?
Ack. I wonder how many people are going to point that one out? For
some reason, even aside from what I typed, I was thinking that 26
doesn't divide by 3. Which is rather aside from the point.
I stand secure in my knowledge that 13 doesn't divide by anything,
because it's fuckin' well prime.
Maarten M Hazewinkel
shawn...@aol.com (ShawnisGod) wrote:
>Andrea Leistra wrote:
>
>> >: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13. >:
>> One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide
>> 27. > >9*3 = ?
>>
>> It's that Engineer Math. You know, three is prime, five is
>> prime, seven is prime, nine is prime...
>>
>Yeah. If it's odd, must be prime, right? And even numbers aren't, so 2
>must not be. Oh, yeah, and everything can be explained with integrals,
>cosines, sequences, and lots of variables and Italian names.
>
>(Don't get me wrong - it CAN. If I can find my math book I'll tell y'all
>about the mathematician who used math to prove that 0=1. It works.
>Somehow, from there, he used it to mathematically prove the existence of
>God, who I think might not like being in the same category as Planck's
>constant.)
Well, once you get to 0=1, you can prove anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten M Hazewinkel | "He's lying. I can tell."
ter...@euronet.nl | "Everyone lies Michael. The innocent lie because they
---------------------- don't want to be blamed for something they didn't do.
And the guilty lie because they don't have any other
choice. Find out why he is lying. The rest will take care of itself." -- B5
John S. Novak, III
>: 9*3 = ?
>Not base 13, it doesn't.
Well, actually, yes it does.
From which the prudent engineer concludes that 27 divides by three no
matter _what_ base it's in.
Sok-Hyon Kang
RJ signing (spoilers) by John S. Novak, III@cris.
> >: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>
> >9*3 = ?
>
> some reason, even aside from what I typed, I was thinking that 26
> doesn't divide by 3. Which is rather aside from the point.
>
> I stand secure in my knowledge that 13 doesn't divide by anything,
> because it's fuckin' well prime.
<snort>
Nice try.
You're -never- going to live this one down. If nothing else, Dylan
Alexander, and others, I'm sure, will make sure you don't forget it.
Steven
Michael Nielsen
>
>
>
>>: 9*3 = ?
>>Not base 13, it doesn't.
>
>
>Well, actually, yes it does.
>From which the prudent engineer concludes that 27 divides by three no
>matter _what_ base it's in.
Here's hoping John isn't a prudent engineer.
3 does not divide 27 in bases 8,9,11,12,14,15,17,18,...
Nor does it in bases 2 through 7, because the question doesn't make sense.
--
Michael
http://tangelo.phys.unm.edu/~mnielsen/index.html
John S. Novak, III
>: No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>: One man-- maximum is 13+1+13 = 27. Three does not divide 27.
>: Two men-- maximum is 36, as of aCoS. Three _does_ divide 36.
>: Six men-- maximum is 72. Three divides 72.
>That works if you consider that (ObNitpick) three does indeed divide
>27. That, and if "the maximum number of women for each man" implies
>that at least one man must be present.
Yeah, yeah....
That's the ticket.
That's what I meant.
>Am I wrong, or did it state in tEotW that there were "a hundred" linked
>men and women that died to cleanse the Eye of the World? I easily
>could have gotten that syntax mixed up, though.
No, I remember that, too.
Uh.... they were working in teams. Two teams.
Right.
John S. Novak, III
>>From which the prudent engineer concludes that 27 divides by three no
>>matter _what_ base it's in.
>Here's hoping John isn't a prudent engineer.
_That_ one was a joke, Michael.
Jesus Christ.
Dylan Flynn Alexander
Novak, III) wrote:
}In <4r2gms$4...@lynx.unm.edu> mnie...@tangelo.phys.unm.edu (Michael
Nielsen) writes:
}
}
}
}>>From which the prudent engineer concludes that 27 divides by three no
}>>matter _what_ base it's in.
}
}>Here's hoping John isn't a prudent engineer.
}
}_That_ one was a joke, Michael.
}Jesus Christ.
And thank you for spoiler protecting it.
--
Dylan Flynn Alexander
dy...@tamu.edu
Sok-Hyon Kang
RJ signing (spoilers) by John S. Novak, III@cris.
> >men and women that died to cleanse the Eye of the World? I easily
> >could have gotten that syntax mixed up, though.
>
> No, I remember that, too.
> Uh.... they were working in teams. Two teams.
> Right.
As people have pointed out in the past, Moiraine doesn't know everything
about the AoL. It could have been seventy two, for all we know.
Steven
Tshen
: because it's fuckin' well prime.
13 divided by 3 = 4 1/3
Oh, you meant _evenly_...that's different.
In that case:
13 divided by 3 = "Norman, coordinate!" Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep...
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
Alistair Young
>In article <4r1odb$1...@tribune.concentric.net>,
>John S. Novak, III <J...@cris.com> wrote:
>>>Not base 13, it doesn't.
>>
>>Well, actually, yes it does.
>>matter _what_ base it's in.
>
>Here's hoping John isn't a prudent engineer.
>
>
>Nor does it in bases 2 through 7, because the question doesn't make sense.
<MODE="picky">
Well, actually, it does. It's just that 27 is represented differently in
different bases. Nevertheless, it's still divisible by 3.
</MODE>
Bryon Wasserman
>In <4qsbso$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>Ack. I wonder how many people are going to point that one out? For
>some reason, even aside from what I typed, I was thinking that 26
>doesn't divide by 3. Which is rather aside from the point.
I wouldn't bet on this going away anytime soon.
Bryon Wasserman
b...@mps.ohio-state.edu
Brian Douglas Ritchie
In article <4r1nr4$2...@tribune.concentric.net>,>In <4qsr8m$6...@acmex.gatech.edu>,
There are spoilers ahead.
>>>No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>>There is no man, so the rule doesn't apply.
>Why, just because?
Not _just_ because. He said that 13 is a special case because there is no
man. The reasoning behind the #/3 rule is unknown to me.
John Novak
>
>>>>No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>>>There is no man, so the rule doesn't apply.
>>Why, just because?
>Not _just_ because. He said that 13 is a special case because there is no
>man. The reasoning behind the #/3 rule is unknown to me.
Jordan said that? Oh, okay.
It's still a just because rule, but I suppose I'll have to buy it.
Brian Douglas Ritchie
In article <4r9dtg$e...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>In <4r7eli$9...@acmey.gatech.edu>,
>gt8...@prism.gatech.edu (Brian Douglas Ritchie) writes: >
>>>>>No men-- maximum is 13. Three does not divide 13.
>>>>There is no man, so the rule doesn't apply.
>>>Why, just because?
>>Not _just_ because. He said that 13 is a special case because there is no
>>man. The reasoning behind the #/3 rule is unknown to me.
>Jordan said that? Oh, okay.
>It's still a just because rule, but I suppose I'll have to buy it.
Sorry about any confusion I caused. I was a wee bit tired when I posted
the original statement, but I thought it was clear.
--
Brian Ritchie
gt8...@prism.gatech.edu
"...the only true science is astrology."
Ryan Reich
>>>2. The total number of people in a circle, when you have the maximum
>>>number of women for each man, is always divisible by three.
>>
>Howsa?
>>
1) Unless I'm mistaken, the statement was that the number of women
in a circle _for each man_ was divisible by three. Since there
need not be a man in the circle of thirteen, don't count it.
2) Your division is abominable. Last time I checked, 27 divided by 3 is 9,
or 27 divided by 9 is 3. Go back to Second grade math.
Ryan_Rand
Todd C Parnell
In article <4r1n1b$r...@tribune.concentric.net>, J...@cris.com (John S. Novak, III) writes:
|> In <4qsbso$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
|>
|> because it's fuckin' well prime.
|>
Well, since we're so fond of odd base representations....if we count in any odd
base greater than 3 then 13 is divisible by at least 2. Come to think of it,
given a two or more digit number using [09] I think there exists a base in which
it is not prime.
--
Todd C. Parnell
tpar...@mit.edu
tpar...@alw.nih.gov
Shane Castle
In rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan,
There is no number base in which 13 (the number corresponding to
decimal thirteen) is not prime. If you are getting into semantics of
the representation of the character "1" followed by the character "3",
then shame on you for being an obfuscatory nitwit. (e.g., "13" in base
nine [nonadecimal?] is 9 plus 3, or decimal 12 [not prime]).
Mr Bergman should get full credit for cutting through the crap. I am
merely paraphrasing him.
This thread has now fallen well into the realm of Sturgeon's Law.
Let's quietly lay it to rest.
--
Shane Castle | "Perfection, then, is finally achieved, not
Boulder County Info Svcs | when there is nothing left to add, but when
Boulder CO USA | there is nothing left to take away."
| - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Aaron Bergman
Shane Castle (sw...@boco.co.gov) wrote:
: Mr Bergman should get full credit for cutting through the crap. I am
: merely paraphrasing him.
That would have been John, IIRC. The attributions got screwed up
as attributions do.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The CDA was overruled. Perhaps they have brains.