I agree with Ørjan's opinion here, that a dependent action specifying multiple conditions is supposed to require all of those conditions. For example, the "and" between 2 and 3 is evidence of this intent.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 01:06, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > Suggested wording: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if > one or more of the following are true: > > 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it > has fewer than N objectors; > > 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has > N or more supporters > > 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: > > I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of > > whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret > > that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be > > interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so > > we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: <nothing>", and > > I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier > > to phrase in the negative way. > > > > Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > >> I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were > >> confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to > >> make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are > >> supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. > >> > >> Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > >> items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > >> are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry for all the versions. > >>> > >>> I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > >>> Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > >>> removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > >>> sentences. > >>> > >>> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > >>> Adoption Index: 2 > >>> Text: > >>> Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > >>> and only if: > >>> > >>> 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > >>> has fewer than N objectors; > >>> > >>> 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > >>> N or more supporters; and > >>> > >>> 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > >>> action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > >>> > >>> 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > >>> > >>> with this: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > >>> unless at least one of the following is true: > >>> > >>> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > >>> at least N objectors. > >>> > >>> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > >>> than N supporters. > >>> > >>> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > >>> action has no supporters or at least one objector. > >>> >
