Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  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
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Nic Evans]

On 06/20/17 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested 
> elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a 
> TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and 
> volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
> underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.
>

Under this interpretation there'd be implied rounding, right? (Or more
accurately some mapping from larger number sets to integers.)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us
humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice
points are).


You don't have to know what it is, but you _do_ have to spell it 
correctly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

I think I'm OK with supporting that interpretation.

天火狐

On 20 June 2017 at 16:09, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > 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.
>
> On the other hand, all those previous definitions were assuming
> currencies were modeled on physical money or assets (minimum unit
> quantities representing smallest coin sizes).
>
> This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested
> elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a
> TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and
> volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
> underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.
>
>
>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> 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.

On the other hand, all those previous definitions were assuming 
currencies were modeled on physical money or assets (minimum unit 
quantities representing smallest coin sizes).

This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested 
elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a 
TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and 
volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> 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. 

Maybe worth noting: we used to use the phrase "Minimum Unit Quantity" 
(MUQ) in the Rules to define the size of the smallest divisible quantity
for a given currency.  (e.g. MUQ=0.01 means you could transfer down to 
Cent units).  I think that's the only time 'unit' was used in the Rules.
Not sure if that usage was recent enough to be any part of Agoran Custom.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

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  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.
>
>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

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).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay 
> shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion 
> space and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed 
> lattice point, being the amount to be payed.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


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).

Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us
humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice
points are).


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I present these comments as evidence on the called CFJ and request that for the 
ease of all participants, the Secretary publish a preliminary report explaining 
the state of the game, if this were to be true.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 7:42 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
>> You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers 
>> being reasonable.
> 
> Do you know what I think happens?  By R2483, a balance is decreased 
> by i and a balance is increased by i.  But balance is a switch that
> can only be integers, soo... (by R2162)
> 
>   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
>   possible value, it comes to have its default value.
> 
> So everything for both parties is set to default (0 for players, 1000 
> for Agora).  Now *there's* a way to breed shinies for Agora.  Or to 
> zero out everyone's shinies with transfers between players.  Whichever.
> 
> (nice one omd, welcome back).
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay 
shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion space 
and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed lattice 
point, being the amount to be payed.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:48 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Hr
> 
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's a precedent (that I can't find right now, I can't remember
> the statement context)

Ah, here we go:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1813

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> The sentence specifically addressing negative payments is required, 
> and cannot be similarly elided, as it serves a different purpose: 
> it stops people from “paying” someone in order to take all of the 
> “payee”’s Shinies for emself.

There's a precedent (that I can't find right now, I can't remember
the statement context) from a past economic system where this scam was
tried, and the precedent says that in common English, it's nonsense to 
'decrease' something by a 'negative' amount, so you can't pay someone 
in negative currency.

This may mean we treat currency unit values more like common sense
exchanges, rather than translating words piecemeal to mathematical 
equivalents (by, say, 'multiplying' two words for negativity to get a 
positive transaction).

[V.J. Rada, that's the only precedent I can think off hand, so I think
you're safe judging straight from the current rules text and first
principles/common sense, no delving required...]

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:23 PM, omd  wrote:

> I pay ais523 0.5 shinies.
> 
> CFJ: ais523 has 0 shinies.
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> First of all, does 0.5 count as an "amount" per Rule 2483?

Gratuity: there’s an elision here for stylistic reasons, but the rules 
nonetheless bar attempts to pay non-integral numbers of shinies. By 
constraining the values of Balance switches and definining “to pay” as

> 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. Any attempt to pay a negative amount is INEFFECTIVE, rules 
> to the contrary notwithstanding.

rule 2483 (“Economics”) effectively only makes it possible to pay amounts that 
would modify the involved Balance switches from one legal value to another. 
omd’s payment does not do so, as it would modify eir balance from an integral 
value to a half-integral value, and half-integral values are not allowed (r. 
2483 again).

The sentence specifically addressing negative payments is required, and cannot 
be similarly elided, as it serves a different purpose: it stops people from 
“paying” someone in order to take all of the “payee”’s Shinies for emself.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Quazie]

By 2240 the latest clause takes precedence - the switch flips and
defaults.  G. Is right I believe

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 19:44 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers
> > being reasonable.
>
> Do you know what I think happens?  By R2483, a balance is decreased
> by i and a balance is increased by i.  But balance is a switch that
> can only be integers, soo... (by R2162)
>
>If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
>possible value, it comes to have its default value.
>
> So everything for both parties is set to default (0 for players, 1000
> for Agora).  Now *there's* a way to breed shinies for Agora.  Or to
> zero out everyone's shinies with transfers between players.  Whichever.
>
> (nice one omd, welcome back).
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers 
> being reasonable.

Do you know what I think happens?  By R2483, a balance is decreased 
by i and a balance is increased by i.  But balance is a switch that
can only be integers, soo... (by R2162)

   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
   possible value, it comes to have its default value.

So everything for both parties is set to default (0 for players, 1000 
for Agora).  Now *there's* a way to breed shinies for Agora.  Or to 
zero out everyone's shinies with transfers between players.  Whichever.

(nice one omd, welcome back).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers being
reasonable. Quazie's remarks about personal balances being broken is still
a concern, and if it does actually go through it could be a little
inconvenient.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 21:25, V.J Rada  wrote:

> No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition
> of amount.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
>
>> Hr
>>
>> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[V.J Rada]

No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition
of amount.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Quazie]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 17:48 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

Why?  There's a CFJ already pending, and a shiny releveling event can fix
agora immediately but just leave you broken.  Confused by why you'd attempt
this.

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

Are we opening the mathematical can of worms here on Agora? Oh dear.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 20:48, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>