> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive >> integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give >> fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero >> shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem). > > It's possible that all of us mathematician-types are wrong, and the > wording in R2483 currently: > > The unit for Balance > values is shiny (pl. shinies). > > If Agora, a player, or an organization (A) 'pays' X shinies to > Agora, a player, or an organization (B), A's Balance is > decreased by X and B's Balance is increased by X. > > is enough to infer that "X" must be specified in units (integers). > Negative values are already forbidden, that only leaves the 0 case > to take care of. (The paragraph break is unfortunate for the > clarity, but the fix would be tiny).
Note the phrasing earlier in r. 2483 (“Economics”): > Each Balance switch's possible values are integers. I’m content to dispose of the argument that “integers” could include arcana such as algebraic integers and integral octonions. Such constructs are interesting, but they’re unusual enough that to interpret the term “integer” to include requires wilful disregard for the far-more-common usage meaning rational integers, i.e., elements of ℤ. I have no authority by which to bind other Agorans to play similarly, but if we get into a CFJ about what, precisely, “integer” means I shall be sorely disappointed. We don’t need to interpret “units” when the rule makes it clear that Balances are integers. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
