I agree with Clare, less brackets.

Jono

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Clare Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:58 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.



On 22/11/2005, at 14:25, Martin Dickson wrote:

> [Carried forward from September due to abstentions].
>
>
> Problem: The current equation for figuring armour construction times,
> [1 + Rank / 2 × Base number of days] is ambiguous. Read according to
> mathematical rules the equation results in all Effective Rk 0 armour
> requiring 1 day to make.
>
> The original intent was that Effective Rk 0 armour takes Base days to
> construct, with the Base days sepcified for each type of armour.
>
> Solution: Correct the formula to: (1 + (Rank / 2)) × Base number of
> days. .

Or should it be (1 + Rank) / 2 x Base number of days.

:-)

to be honest either is fine by me - I just like the solution which adds
the least brackets,

cheers,

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Problem with the previous "less brackets" solution is that the base time is not how long it takes for Rank 0 goods.

(1 + Rank / 2) * Base Time 

Has a minimal number of brackets, and gives the current, more intuitive answer.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2005 12:20 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.


I agree with Clare, less brackets.

Jono

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Clare Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:58 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.



On 22/11/2005, at 14:25, Martin Dickson wrote:

> [Carried forward from September due to abstentions].
>
>
> Problem: The current equation for figuring armour construction times, 
> [1 + Rank / 2 × Base number of days] is ambiguous. Read according to 
> mathematical rules the equation results in all Effective Rk 0 armour 
> requiring 1 day to make.
>
> The original intent was that Effective Rk 0 armour takes Base days to 
> construct, with the Base days sepcified for each type of armour.
>
> Solution: Correct the formula to: (1 + (Rank / 2)) × Base number of 
> days. .

Or should it be (1 + Rank) / 2 x Base number of days.

:-)

to be honest either is fine by me - I just like the solution which adds the least brackets,

cheers,

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

but then, how many would know to divide rank by 2 before adding 1 and then multiplying by the base time?

this gives 
1 * base for rank 0
3 * base for rank 4
5 * base for rank 8
6 * base for rank 10

almost easier for the mathematically challenged to put a table in...





> 
> From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/11/25 Fri PM 03:29:28 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.
> 
> Problem with the previous "less brackets" solution is that the base time is not how long it takes for Rank 0 goods.
> 
> (1 + Rank / 2) * Base Time
> 
> Has a minimal number of brackets, and gives the current, more intuitive answer.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2005 12:20 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.
> 
> 
> I agree with Clare, less brackets.
> 
> Jono
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Clare Baldock
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2005 3:58 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Voting December -- Armourer Correction.
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/11/2005, at 14:25, Martin Dickson wrote:
> 
> > [Carried forward from September due to abstentions].
> >
> >
> > Problem: The current equation for figuring armour construction times,
> > [1 + Rank / 2 × Base number of days] is ambiguous. Read according to
> > mathematical rules the equation results in all Effective Rk 0 armour
> > requiring 1 day to make.
> >
> > The original intent was that Effective Rk 0 armour takes Base days to
> > construct, with the Base days sepcified for each type of armour.
> >
> > Solution: Correct the formula to: (1 + (Rank / 2)) × Base number of
> > days. .
> 
> Or should it be (1 + Rank) / 2 x Base number of days.
> 
> :-)
> 
> to be honest either is fine by me - I just like the solution which adds the least brackets,
> 
> cheers,
> 
> clare
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --