False Blocks

[jnewton]

I am having problems understanding how to know what makes this rule a conditional and not a block. Is it the word EACH.....not being stated EVERY in the rule? The rule says:

Each rock classic is immediately preceded on the CD by a new composition composition.

The definition of the block on pg 17 says a block reflects the idea of a fixed spatial relationship between variable. The inference that I and I guess many students make is that the words "immediately preceded on the CD by..." to imply or infer that fixed spatial relationship.

If that is it that is really splitting hairs and really a matter of semantics IMHO.

What makes it a conditional statement? Thanks!!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi J,

It's not really splitting hairs or a matter of semantics because the rule wording here--and resulting diagram--has a material effect on the possibilities within the game. Let's talk more about it, and consider a couple of key issues:

1. The word "each" is indeed a conditional indicator (and it acts just like "every" would if it had been used instead).

2. The "immediately preceded" language does produce a fixed spatial block--in the correct diagram you can see the NR block in the necessary condition. However, if you were to just use the sole diagram of "NR" (and not the conditional diagram), you would make a serious error in this game, which is why the section is entitled "False Blocks." There's more to it than a simple block diagram, hence the discussion in the book

So, what's happening here, then? In the explanation on page 47, I note that there were multiple Rs and Ns in the game. This is critical because in a game with just one R and N, the result would be solely a block. However, that rule with multiple Rs and Ns means that an N can be disconnected from R. It's possible, for example, for two Ns to be consecutive in this scenario. That's a possibility that simply diagramming the rule as an NR block precludes, and one that would be a game changer if you missed it. That's why I entitled it False Blocks, because I wanted to get across the point that simply seeing block language doesn't automatically means that the result is a simple block. Operationally, you just can't look at a certain part of the rule and infer that that part is the entire rule; you have to look at other factors in play, including other language in the rule.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[jnewton]

I get it. I get it!!!! Thanks. I didn't read the explanation beneath. I just kept getting hooked on the rule instead of the entire text of the discussion.

Thanks Again!