Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

On 26 May 2004 17:18:36 -0700, Neo wrote:

(snip)
>> So I immediately knew that you didn't mean "as generic as XDb1", since if
>> you had you'd surely have provided full details on how generic XDb1 is.
>
>Actually I did mean "as generic as XDb1" in my mind and it is true
>that I didn't spell out all the details, since normalizing down to
>atomic symbols has no meaning to most, and I was expecting an
>iterative process to get an RM implemenation similar enough in
>genericness and normalization to make a fair comparison. Apologies for
>the confusion.

This does indeed explain why you kept on talking about things that are not relevant to the challenge. I can see how it took you quite some time to realise that you didn't put the challenge up the way you intended. This just goes to show how important it is to proofread your messages carefully, especially if money is at stake.

I'm glad this confusion is now finally out of the way. I assume that you'll check my implementation again, to see for yourself that it does indeed fully satisfy the challenge as it was published (as opposed to how you intended to publish it). I expect to see your confirmation that I did indeed fully satisfy all requirements you set in the challenge before long.

Best, Hugo

-- 

(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)