On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an "algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.
Tangent: The word "unit" in the realm of mathematics has the meaning of "identity element", which would cause problems in the other direction anyway. 天火狐 On 20 June 2017 at 15:20, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > > > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what > > > octonian space and lattice points are > > > > I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more > > offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should > > be as layman as possible imo (yet unambiguous and sufficiently > > "complete" to cover gameplay). > > In the "old days" we actually explicitly favored mathematical and legal > word usage over "ordinary" uses. From Rule 754/7, circa 2007: > (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, > and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by > default has the meaning it has in those contexts. > > (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule > by default has its ordinary-language meaning. > > As a result, when my previously-mentioned judgement on CFJ 1813 was > overturned by CFJ 1826, it relied on arcane aspects of set theory to > find that "decreasing negatives" was nonsense rather than a net > positive. We later (in 2013) purposefully reversed/removed that > mathematical and legal dominance, in favor of common language. > > >
