The second one wins, since they were the first one to arrive with the most food. When the first one arrived, they must have already had less food than the second one, since otherwise the second one couldn’t have had more food than that left when they arrived.
That doesn’t seem right, because it would be totally equivalent to “the one who arrives with the most food”. You could also interpret the sentence to mean [first AND most], and at least with that interpretation saying “first” has significance and isn’t redundant, even though most outcomes have no valid winner. Ultimately I think /u/[email protected] is right and it is totally unclear how to determine the outcome.
If the dogs don’t eat any food, they all have the same food in the bowl (assuming they don’t drop any). So by that logic, they all have the most food. So the first to arrive wins.
The outcome is very clear to anyone who has ever played games before, you’re just being very pedantic for pedantic sake.
The outcome is very clear to anyone who has ever played games before, you’re just being very pedantic for pedantic sake.
Please don’t call people pedantic when they’re trying to understand confusing speech. That’s the opposite of pedantry. Pedantry is focusing on specifics when they aren’t really relevant. This person is confused by the specifics.
If the dogs don’t eat any food, they all have the same food in the bowl (assuming they don’t drop any). So by that logic, they all have the most food. So the first to arrive wins.
Ok, this makes sense for why first isn’t redundant, I wasn’t thinking about the possibility of ties.
The outcome is very clear to anyone who has ever played games before, you’re just being very pedantic for pedantic sake.
No it’s legit confusing. Maybe you’re just better at games but I honestly would not understand a game explained that way.
You’re not being pedantic at all. Just wanted to say. That was a really odd thing to say. If anything it’s the opposite of pedantry or trying to understand the pedantry of it.
So no one wins then?
The second one wins, since they were the first one to arrive with the most food. When the first one arrived, they must have already had less food than the second one, since otherwise the second one couldn’t have had more food than that left when they arrived.
That doesn’t seem right, because it would be totally equivalent to “the one who arrives with the most food”. You could also interpret the sentence to mean [first AND most], and at least with that interpretation saying “first” has significance and isn’t redundant, even though most outcomes have no valid winner. Ultimately I think /u/[email protected] is right and it is totally unclear how to determine the outcome.
The most food is the main win condition. In case of a tie for food first to arrive wins the tie.
If the dogs don’t eat any food, they all have the same food in the bowl (assuming they don’t drop any). So by that logic, they all have the most food. So the first to arrive wins.
The outcome is very clear to anyone who has ever played games before, you’re just being very pedantic for pedantic sake.
Please don’t call people pedantic when they’re trying to understand confusing speech. That’s the opposite of pedantry. Pedantry is focusing on specifics when they aren’t really relevant. This person is confused by the specifics.
Ok, this makes sense for why first isn’t redundant, I wasn’t thinking about the possibility of ties.
No it’s legit confusing. Maybe you’re just better at games but I honestly would not understand a game explained that way.
You’re not being pedantic at all. Just wanted to say. That was a really odd thing to say. If anything it’s the opposite of pedantry or trying to understand the pedantry of it.
Thanks for proving my point by starting this long comment chain.