DejMar

You are missing some parameters in your problem. What do you mean by "how can this watch be designed to work?" Is it not already designed to work? Are you asking how an LCD device works?

Another question, as the problem sounds like a trick. Though the five squares share exactly two points, will it require some of the squares to intersect more than two points in total with all squares? Or are the shared two points only referring to the points shared between any two squares?

Oops. I did make an error. I incorrectly read "It was a draw" for when all players used the teams, and for the subset of three members. K-man got it right.

@bonanova, I had already demonstrated that in post #9. A difference is that I began at the board's heart instead of a corner. Oh, and yes, kudos to k-man.

BMAD, It seems you left point 1 of gavinksong's request for clarifications unclarified. Your answer is ambiguous in that regard. And, to add a question of my own, are the squares to be considered residing in the same Euclidean plane?

@bonanova Im curious how you found a move length of 13.3. Wouldn't that take you off the playing field? A chessboard is 8x8, but as the initial starting square is not counted*, the longest number of squares moved (as opposed to distance*) is 7.

Your three reals {2, 2pi, 4-pi} did show that the proposition that all terms will be a multiple of the irrational value if an irrational value did exists is not necessarily true. (Hence a proposition and not an assertion). What you did demonstrate is that not only scaling, the multiplicative aspect, is an operational factor to be considered, but that the additive aspect employed is a factor, as well.

Perhaps check it again, It was my suspicion that you did not expect the factorial character to be used in the manner of a subfactorial. I also guessed you were not aware of the multifactorial notation a!(b), sometimes written a!(b), a!b, or a!b such that a ∉ ℤ- where a mod b = 0, and b ∈ ℤ+, but more often recognized with b (i.e., multiple) factorial characters following the number. Of course it would be difficult to find a solution for the multifactorial given the limitation of three 8's and the other notation symbols. There indeed is a special character (i.e., a single code point) for the double factorial character -- just as I had used in my post for the double factorial -- hence my question about concatenation with the symbol. Of course, two factorial characters are often used in ASCII notation, as the code point is extended out of the normal ASCII range.

A note regarding the rule modification. I see now the word that caused confusion was the word 'unless'.

Yes, division by zero does create a situation where all values are correct (and thus undefined). In addition to this error, I see where I had an error while calculating.