I agree with this interpretation, but I find nowhere that suggests that payments must only be legal values of the balance switch. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > >> 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 >
