ooopdddddd

There are several very practical reasons (and not emotional) reasons to expect that "4" is the result of bad implementation.

I can think any number of programming mistakes that will result in a supposed (pseudo-)random number generator to be be biased to very small numbers. I have made such mistakes myself.

By any reasonable estimate, the probability of randomly picking a number below 256 is MUCH smaller than the probability of someone having made a mistake.

Computers can make decisions and they do it all the time.

The problem is entirely different. Sometimes they make decisions we don't like, but unlike with people we haven't found a way to punish them that satisfies our sense of justice or discourages other computers from making similar decisions.

I don't believe this works in general. If you have a set of tiles that connect to neither the horse nor to an exit, they can still keep each other reachable in this formulation.

You are talking like this is the first time judges have been blocked for political reasons. See Horst Dreier in 2008 as a high-profile example.

The detailed results are in the links at the bottom of the post.

That's only if you are using pure predicates. From a quick glance, the code makes liberal use of assert, retract, and the cut operator, so you can't write a query that solves the problem automatically.

Up and down quarks have names that make perfect sense, they are derived from the isospin which in turn derives from spin (spin-1/2 was the only other well-known object in physics that had the same symmetry properties). Which one is up and which one is down is the only arbitrary choice.

Using "positive" and "negative" would have been a disaster. What charge does a positive antiquark have?