On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 02:45, Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/5/19 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Of course it's worth asking whether "amount of (items)" in R2550 > > is similar enough to "number of (items)" in R2550, but it seems fairly > > close to common sense that (items) is the governing part of the > > definition. > > > Ah, glorious quotation marks. This may be hyper-textualist (and I don't > know if there's precedent for this), but I would think the quotations > marks demand matching exactly that pattern (modulo formatting, > apparently), so it wouldn't apply to "amount". > > -- > Jason Cobb
CFJ: Jason Cobb has placed a bid of 2.1 Coins on the current zombie auction. Argument: Quoting R2550: > A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do so by > announcement, specifying the amount of the Auction's currency to > bid. A bid placed on an Auction before it is initiated, or after > it has ended, is INEFFECTIVE. Where the text says "specifying the amount ... to bid", it does not give any explicit guidance on what an "amount" can be. Ordinary language is full of ambiguities, and reading in interpreting it is generally a process of making common-sense inferences about the intended meaning. For example: * I think we would all interpret the "CAN do so" as meaning "CAN bid on that same auction e is authorized to bid on", rather than CAN bid on an[y] auction", even though the latter may be consistent with the text in some pedantic sense. * We understand that "A person ... CAN do so..." isn't just an assertion that there exists at least one person somewhere in the world who is authorized and also CAN bid on an auction; it's saying that every authorized person can. Similarly, "A bid placed ... is INEFFECTIVE" isn't informing us that there exists some bid somewhere that was placed at the wrong time and is also INEFFECTIVE; it's saying that every bid placed outside the time of the Auction is INEFFECTIVE. Furthermore, note that the text says "the amount ... to bid", no "an amount ... to bid", implying that it's referring to a notion of "amount to bid" that is already understood by the reader. Along the same lines, consider H. Judge D. Margaux's argument for CFJ 3694 [0], which e included in eir judgement [1]. E argued that R2545's text "An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency" allows us to infer that the lots in an auction can be transferred. I think it is similarly reasonable to understand that the bids in in auction are intended to be paid. So, let's use some common sense in understanding what this text is saying. A bid in this auction is an amount of Coins. 2.1 is not an amount of Coins any more than "town fountain" is an amount of coins: Coins are indivisible entities. You certainly can't transfer 2.1 Coins. So 2.1 Coins is not a bid. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-January/052940.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-January/039764.html -- - Falsifian
