(Edit - removing the bold accusation that this was a typo - but leaving the core of the question as it had me stumped and the answer below is worth thinking about)
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but I think (i.e. just a smidge over 50% sure) there might be a typo on the Physics Project docs - section 2.7
https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/basic-form-of-models/rules-depending-on-more-than-one-relation/index.html
specifically in the second panel, when I work it through I get this pattern:
I think you're right. It's looking like I just need to keep reading more sections, because this is addressed already. Thanks for the reply!
Yes, rules are not functions, that is, they are not necessarily deterministic. I'm not sure which papers you are referring to, but, maybe, the docs on event ordering and selection could be helpful.
To me this implies that the rule as presented is not a well defined function without designating the ordering used. Are evolution rules not supposed to be functions? Maybe i should try reading the paper and not the website technical introduction?
This sketch helped me make sense of it:
This helps make a lot of sense of it - thanks!
I need to think some more about rule-ordering perhaps
i think maybe this was the intended rule:
seem to be similar issues throughout the page - maybe just y and z got switched somewhere (or I'm being dense...)
