Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On 7 Aug 2013, at 01:26, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 20:24 -0400, Max Schutz wrote: >> wait we have to re-register again > > Probably not. Wooble thinks we do, but I'm not sure if anyone else > agrees with em. > > One common problem with nomic is that people disagree as to what the > state of things is. Problem?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 20:24 -0400, Max Schutz wrote: > wait we have to re-register again Probably not. Wooble thinks we do, but I'm not sure if anyone else agrees with em. One common problem with nomic is that people disagree as to what the state of things is. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > wait we have to re-register again No. Well, not unless Wooble.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
wait we have to re-register again On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 20:14 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: > > I register. > > I also register, on the very remote chance that this actually does > anything. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: >> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, >> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their >> default values"? > > Rule 1586. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg26317.html Counter-counterargument: people and fora aren't rules-defined entities, they're real world entities, thus Rule 1586 doesn't attempt to regulate how their properties continue. -- Wooble
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On 5 August 2013 21:35, omd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: >>> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, >>> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their >>> default values"? >> >> Rule 1586. > > By the way, the rules didn't actually say "when created, switches have > their default values". The original version was explicit: > > Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class > of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously > been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue > to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in > the default state of the switch. > > and the modern version, though more vague, has always read: > > If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to > have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. > > which does not explicitly limit how the possible value might be obtained. Ah, okay. I can rest easy now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd wrote: >> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, >> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their >> default values"? > > Rule 1586. By the way, the rules didn't actually say "when created, switches have their default values". The original version was explicit: Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in the default state of the switch. and the modern version, though more vague, has always read: If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. which does not explicitly limit how the possible value might be obtained.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> An alternate viewpoint: >> >> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the >> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons. > > Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, > switches have their default values" == "new switches have their > default values"? Rule 1586. http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg26317.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> An alternate viewpoint: >> >> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the >> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons. > > Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, > switches have their default values" == "new switches have their > default values"? The only one I can see is that the publicity switch was not ever newly created, merely newly defined as being a switch. - teucer
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census
On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> An alternate viewpoint: > > CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the > normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons. Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created, switches have their default values" == "new switches have their default values"?
