Satsuoni

19

Seynir "Do you recognize the smell?" I go to the indicated door and sniff at it. [ooc] what skill is that? Knowledge: odors?[/ooc]

Well, yeah. We can speak in shorthand, like this : (looking at the village) : Me : KLB? (kill, loot, then burn) Umier : NK. CT - L, NB (not kill. capture and torture, then loot according to the information gained. Leave the houses unburned) In dungeon , like now: Me: Turjan, ChB door. We: PK: (Trujan check that door. If it is ok, open it by whatever means necessary(Break). Others prepare to kill (be ready, just in case))

[ooc]Ah, I see them now. Thanks.[/ooc]

Telepathy is good, too. Although why bother? It is not like our plans are secret, or something (kill, loot, burn, crush, torture - what else does adventurer do?)

[ooc] Yes, i know, I am using the same notation. (also I hope that orcs don't speak infernal) Sorry, I was reading that post from iPhone and missed italics (and a closing quote). Handwave : I was just curious [/ooc] Seynir "Fine. No need to waste my spells then." I turn to Turjan : "Could you please check both of those doors for traps? Feel free to take your time, we are in no particular hurry." [edit][ooc] Eerongal, could you put the doors (or some marks) on the picture, so we could differentiate between them?[/ooc]

Seynir <I translate words of Umieri to orcish> "So, you think we should leave the &orkabobs& alone, and proceed to explore the doors in from of us? Or do you think we should interrogate them to learn the layout of the place? They don't seem to be willing to talk, though. Do you think you could persuade them?" "By the by, what is the result of your examination? Are these orcs similar to the ones from your own plane?"

Sense motive: 14 I mutter to myself :"{So you don't want to talk, eh. I guess I'll get my chance to try out those recipes after all.}" To other party members "Come here, please. They don't seem to want to talk to me. Maybe one of you can persuade them to be more eloquent. "

Well, sure, but that will get tedious if I have to switch several times in one phrase. I'll probably use both depending on the situation.

Seynir Hm. These orcs do not seem to be very hostile. If anything, they seem too exhausted to care. My first impulse would be to kill them, but they may prove a valuable source of information. If they don't, well.. I address orcs (in fluent orc) "<Are you alone here? Are you going to attack us any time soon? If not, then do you mind if we talk to you?>"

Ok, at this point languages may come into play (I know I am going to switch between them sometimes), so for now, I am going to use <> for Orc, {} for Draconic, [] for Abyssal, && for infernal (If i can remember the designations myself )

Seynir I carefully move to the chalk. [ooc] if nothing happens[/ooc] I pick up the chalk and throw it to f23 (20). I also motion for the rest of the party to join me. "There is somebody out there, but they don't seem to be intent on attack."

13 [ooc]I use ranged attack mod, right?[/ooc]

Seynir I pick up the glowing chalk and throw it in the corner (k19).

That is technically correct., but are you sure about eight? Also, just checking, is it still 1st on your side?

What.

Seynir I carefully walk to the chalk, alert for any movement outside the lighted circle.

Seynir I look around, and listen closely for a moment: (Spot:20 Listen: 21) "Please do so. I doubt that whatever it is out there is in the mood for the fight, or it would have attacked while Turjan was alone here, but still, be prepared." [ooc] Do the two doors include the one we came in through? If not, what happened to it? It should still be visible, if the barrier is one-way, as a door, or as a patch of pure black. What is the (visible) form of the room? And approximate size?[/ooc]

Seynir I shrug, wait for a few moments to let Striax potentially walk out of the way, and follow him through the doorway.

Um. Could you give me an example where the above does not hold while still having the mutual inverse? So, the following problem: Give an example of two groups (A and B ), for which, there exist maps a: (A->B ) and b(B->A), such that a o b =IA and b o a =IB (I being an Identity map for the corresponding group) for all elements of A, B, such that either a or b does not map elements uniquely (onto corresponding group) and/or such that |A|!=|B|.

Seynir "Well, that was reckless. The black barrier seems to prevent sound from going from the other side as well, so I doubt we'll hear him, even if he is being eaten alive, starting from legs. So I suggest we hurry a bit." I quickly scribble a note in common and Draconic, as well as the map indicating the way way we went, and attach it to the wall dear the doorway. "There. Let's go." [ooc] And there goes one of my 3 parchments[/ooc]

Seynir " unless we want to leave a useful piece of equipment behind, our choice has already been made", I say, indicating a ten- foot pole stuck in the doorway. "Good idea about the note, though. I'll get to it. Where do you think we should leave it? Here or at the tunnel entrance?"

... Ok, I'll rephrase. Is a map (f1;f2)(G->(HxK)) an isomorphism if it has an inverse (g1+g2)((HxK)->G), and is an inverse of an inverse (and vise versa) (both the map and inverse being defined over the whole set of the corresponding group)? Or are there any additional qualifiers?

Room Seynir "Ok, that does not look good. Turjan, could you please try opening the other door just a little bit and closing it before the handle goes inside the dark stuff, if the other door is the same as this one? Also, please be sure to release the handle if it does not close, or starts to drag you. I am not sure I want to touch this stuff just yet, before we can ascertain its properties." I pull out my flask with acid, an carefully get a few drops on the part of the hinge that still shows. [ooc] just how is the hinge attached to the stone? How thick it it in the thinnest part? I want to break the door off, but I am not sure just how strong concentrated acetic acid is. I know that it dissolves iron, but how fast.. Maybe I should conjure some sulfuric acid [/ooc]

Ok. So, what (excepting the terminology) is wrong with my solution? It is obviously wrong, since cool, advanced group theory problem cannot be solved by such primitive methods, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is amiss (due to the lack of knowledge on said theory). [Edit] Just noticed an edit, sorry. Wait till I read it.. done. Now I have a question about the solution. So, first you define some new functions. Then you show that these new functions behave the same as old functions. Um. So? That does not imply that they are the same functions or that G and (H*K) are isomorphic, just that you can define the functions that act the same way on both of them, or am I misunderstanding something again? Sorry.