Rules:
Words:
1. Bathtub
2. Banana
3. Amputate
4. Expectations
5. Sandwich
6. Hamsters
7. Samba
8. After (7)
9. Ragged (8)
10. Somnambulate (1, 3)
11. Eschew (10)
12. Whimsically (11) [2]
13. Gimpy (3, 6)
14. Yesterday (13)
15. Yoke (14)
16. Underestimating (17) [3]
17. Game (4, 8)
18. Elongate (17)
19. Sandwich (40090)
21. Antipode (5, 10) [5]
22. Oligopoly (2, 11)
23. Acidic (1725)
24. Hate (18, 6)
25. Schwa
26. Archipelago (25)
27. Obfuscation (26)
29. Ban (58)
33. Sandwich (8,16) [5]
34. Superb (35)
35. Built (36)
36. Trip (37)
37. Pogo (9, 18)
38. Obfuscation (37)
42. Embassy
48. Orifices (49)
49. Sinister (50)
50. Rub (51)
51. Baseball (2, 10)
58. Banner
59. Rose
60. Estrogen (59)
65. Sandwich (1, 8) [5]
69. Sandwich (17, 34)
77. Obfuscation (48, 29)
82. Obfuscation (22, 60)
125. Marshmallow (126)
126. Wasabi
127. Sandwich (14, 42)
151. Salivate (127, 24)
152. Entered (151)
295. Erdos
344. Amputate (7, 49)
345. Elephant (344)
525. Sandwich (15, 35)
750. Sandwich (15, 50)
853. Treated (40091) [4]
863. Incarcerate (1726)
875. Oxygen (25, 35) [7]
967. Reconcile (17406)
1007. Mage (17) [9]
1275. Sandwich (525, 750) (*)
1724. Obsessed (1725)
1725. Didactic (1726)
1726. Clarinet (69, 345)
2267. Lo (4304562092579246698333199519271000000000000000)
3451. Cataclysmic (1725, 1726) [11]
5007. Obfuscation (5008)
5008. Nightingales (5009)
5009. Sore (59)
5801. Ordered (29005)
10935. Obfuscation (45, 243)
11087. Ordered (152, 10935)
17405. Archbishop (17406)
17406. Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis (5, 295)
29004. Add (29005)
29005. Doers (295)
40090. Sandwich (40091)
40091. Hatred (40092)
40092. Dad (29005, 11087)
899999. Odd (900000)
900000. Dagger (9)
809999100000. Bum (899999, 900000)
72899109000900000. Are (899999, 809999100000)
5904821268153089919999999997. Obfuscation (5904821268153089919999999998)
5904821268153089919999999998. Normalizing (5904821268153089919999999999)
5904821268153089919999999999. Gorges (5904821268153089919000000000)
5904821268153089919000000000. Sin (809999100000, 72899109000900000)
16481763162034778695440721451537. Arose (4304562092579246698333199519270999999999999999)
4304562092579246698333199519270999999999999999. Heterosexual (4304562092579246698333199519271000000000000000)
4304562092579246698333199519271000000000000000 (4.30*10^45). Log (72899109000900000, 5904821268153089919000000000)
3486691420883306504327863110729942656100000000000000000000 (3.4867*10^57) Sandwich (72899109000900000,4304562092579246698333199519271000000000000000) [3]
Samba comes from Embassy (#42) via rule 4--Micah
Oh, ok, I hadn't read the rule carefully... I thought you couldn't do that because Samba has two a's and Embassy has only 1. Thanks for the clarification.
Umm . . . I assume that Ragged (#900000) is translated from Ragged (#9) through rule 9 . . . but in that case, wouldn't the correct number be (#000009)? --Will (Sorry, my bad. Fixed 900000 and 899999, which don't seem to affect anything else. --AdamBliss)
I believe the proper number for Dad must be either 29004 (taken), or 29400. Also, I claim that "" is not an English word (though admittedly it is not a proper name either.) --AdamBliss Taking Add from 29004 - pad add with spaces on the left. Move the last d to the front, the a to second, the other d to third, and both spaces to fourth and fifth. At least that was the impression I got from that rule. --BrianRoney But then the word is actually "dad ", which is not an anagram of "add". The permutation applied to the numbers must be a permutation which can apply to the original word, before it is padded with spaces. That is, all spaces must be fixed by the permutation. There are only two permutations which take "add" to "dad", those being (123->213) and (123->312). That's what I had in mind, but if it isn't clear then OhWell?.--AdamBliss Oh. Oops. Sorta fixed. I made 49002 valid from a different path. -- BrianRoney
Is that number really really big, or is it just me? -- BenjAzose
In my opinion, the null-word discussion has ceased to be relevant to this page. Thus: TheNullWord. Thank you . . . beat me to it.
I'm assuming that in rules two and three, the 'if it does not already exist' applies to generic word (n +- 1), not the specific word that you are creating, right? That is, I see multiple instances of the word obfuscation created using those two rules, and I'm wordering whether that is actually valid. -- AlexWilkins
I was of the opinion that rules two and three refered to the idea that you could make word (n+1) if there isn't some other word (n+1) already at that slot. I assumed further rules just assumed it. If this isn't the case, oops. -- BrianRoney
Sounds fine to me; I was just curious. I guess this discussion can be removed now (or clarified in the rules, if someone cares to make 'obfuscation').