Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:28 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> On 11/10/19 7:24 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" 
> > clause is imported, but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving 
> > exactly the same syntactic purpose in exactly the same structure.
>
> While they may have the same grammatical function, they have an
> important semantic difference:
>
> For the "by its owner" case, there is always some entity that CAN
> perform the action by announcement, so the action CAN always be
> performed by announcement, so R478 gives conditions under which persons
> perform the action.
>
> For the "on Tuesdays" case, there is sometimes no entity that CAN
> perform the action by announcement - this means that it is false that
> "the action CAN be performed by announcement", so R478's clause says
> nothing about when the action is performed.
>
>

Oh, ok. This response clarifies your scam to me now. I still think it fails, 
because I think it's pretty clear in the context of the rules that R478 is 
providing clarity on the "by announcement" mechanism, rather than trying to 
state universally what happens. That might not be a proper definition of the 
term as you and G were arguing, but that doesn't make it perform as you 
described either I think. I see it as a partial explanation of the mechanism, 
and in this case R2577 is providing additional necessary conditions for the 
mechanism's usage in this particular instance.

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/10/19 7:24 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:

This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" clause is imported, 
but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving exactly the same syntactic purpose 
in exactly the same structure.

While they may have the same grammatical function, they have an 
important semantic difference:


For the "by its owner" case, there is always some entity that CAN 
perform the action by announcement, so the action CAN always be 
performed by announcement, so R478 gives conditions under which persons 
perform the action.


For the "on Tuesdays" case, there is sometimes no entity that CAN 
perform the action by announcement - this means that it is false that 
"the action CAN be performed by announcement", so R478's clause says 
nothing about when the action is performed.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Nch via agora-discussion]

---
Nch

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:22 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> On 11/10/19 7:19 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > Or better yet:
> >
> > > Rule 2577/Y
> > > Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> > > on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its
> > > backing document.
> > > Would you argue that someone could do it by announcement any day because 
> > > "by announcement" in 478 doesn't restrict the day? Or would you agree 
> > > that restricts the "by announcement" to Tuesdays?
>
> I would argue that my scam would only work on Tuesdays, since on
> non-Tuesdays, there is no entity that CAN perform the action by
> announcement, so the action CANNOT be performed by announcement, so
> R478's clause doesn't attach.
>
> -
>
> Jason Cobb

This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" clause is 
imported, but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving exactly the same 
syntactic purpose in exactly the same structure.

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/10/19 7:19 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:

Or better yet:


Rule 2577/Y
Asset Actions [Excerpt]
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document.

Would you argue that someone could do it by announcement any day because "by 
announcement" in 478 doesn't restrict the day? Or would you agree that restricts the "by 
announcement" to Tuesdays?


I would argue that my scam would only work on Tuesdays, since on 
non-Tuesdays, there is no entity that CAN perform the action by 
announcement, so the action CANNOT be performed by announcement, so 
R478's clause doesn't attach.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/10/19 7:17 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:

I have a question about this hypothetical version:


Rule 2577/X
Asset Actions [Excerpt]
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be
done by its owner.

Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just an 
expanded form of the current wording.

Yep, I would argue my scam works as long as there is someone/something 
capable of performing it by announcement.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Nch via agora-discussion]

---
Nch

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:17 PM, Nch  wrote:

> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you 
> > > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by 
> > > announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions 
> > > are, only the owner can perform this specific action.
> > >
> > > > Rule 2577/2
> > > > Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> > > > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
> > > > backing document.
> >
> > My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on
> > who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause
> > only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says
> > that I do perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing
> > that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing
> > the action.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
>
> This doesn't make sense to me, at all. The "by announcement" method is 
> specified in a subclause of a sentence, it doesn't make sense that the 
> surrounding context is somehow irrelevant. I could buy this if it said "by 
> announcement, by its owner" and the argument was that those were separate, 
> but the lack of a comma makes it clear that their connected.
>
> I have a question about this hypothetical version:
>
> > Rule 2577/X
> > Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> > subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be
> > done by its owner.
>
> Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just 
> an expanded form of the current wording.

Or better yet:

> Rule 2577/Y
> Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its
> backing document.

Would you argue that someone could do it by announcement any day because "by 
announcement" in 478 doesn't restrict the day? Or would you agree that 
restricts the "by announcement" to Tuesdays?

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you 
> > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by 
> > announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions 
> > are, only the owner can perform this specific action.
> >
> > > Rule 2577/2
> > > Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> > > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
> > > backing document.
>
> My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on
> who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause
> only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says
> that I do perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing
> that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing
> the action.
>
> --
>
> Jason Cobb

This doesn't make sense to me, at all. The "by announcement" method is 
specified in a subclause of a sentence, it doesn't make sense that the 
surrounding context is somehow irrelevant. I could buy this if it said "by 
announcement, by its owner" and the argument was that those were separate, but 
the lack of a comma makes it clear that their connected.

I have a question about this hypothetical version:

> Rule 2577/X
> Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be
> done by its owner.

Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just an 
expanded form of the current wording.

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:

What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you parse "by announcement", 
the 2577 text immediately modifies "by announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter 
what the other conditions are, only the owner can perform this specific action.



Rule 2577/2
Asset Actions [Excerpt]

An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document.



My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on 
who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause 
only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says 
that I _do_ perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing 
that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing 
the action.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 10:06 PM, Jason Cobb  
wrote:

> On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > > Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
> > > announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't
> > > give
> > > an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
> > > similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
> > > that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
> > > definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.
> >
> > Here, I disagree.  I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
> > substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by
> > announcement" in
> > association with the definition of an action, it means the defined
> > action is
> > performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc.  The parts in the quotes
> > still
> > function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
> > quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.
> > -G.
>
> Relevant clause, repeated for ease of reading:
>
> >Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> >announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> >clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
> >
>
> I find it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other, but here
> goes (also, I may be going a bit language nerd https://xkcd.com/1443/
> here):
>
> Considering the wording as applying a specific property whenever the
> rules use "by announcement" with regards to an action does solve the
> active/passive grammatical disparity in R478's sentence (since it would
> be a dependent clause and an independent clause, each in the active
> voice). As for the "by announcement" being in quotes, that can be read
> as simply requiring the exact phrasing.
>
> As another example, an instance in the current rules that I am
> absolutely sure uses definition-by-properties (since I wrote this) is
> this clause from R2162:
>
> > A Rule that designates
> > a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
> > to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
> > level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
> > switch as secured (at that power level).
>
> This clearly does not give an actual definition for "secured" when
> applied to switches, it merely states the consequences of the Rules
> designating a type of switch as "secured". It looks relatively similar
> to R473's sentence - a quoted term, and a statement of what the
> consequences are when that term is used. A simple text replacement would
> simply not be meaningful here. Although R478's sentence uses a dependent
> clause, I read the two has having the same effect.
>
> Compare this to
>
> > The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".
>
> or
>
> > To "change" one's vote is to
> > retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one.
>
> These examples are clearly actual definitions - they have a linking
> verb, a term, and a meaning. They don't examine what the text of the
> Rules says at all - they just say what a term means. A text substitution
> would be meaningful here.
>
> Anyways, this has been my rant. It probably accomplished nothing, but I
> tried.
>
> --
>
> Jason Cobb

What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you parse 
"by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by announcement" with 
"by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions are, only the owner can 
perform this specific action.


> Rule 2577/2
> Asset Actions [Excerpt]
>
> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
> by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
> backing document.

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't 
give

an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.


Here, I disagree.  I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by 
announcement" in
association with the definition of an action, it means the defined 
action is
performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc.  The parts in the quotes 
still

function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.

-G.



Relevant clause, repeated for ease of reading:


   Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
   announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
   clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.


I find it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other, but here 
goes (also, I may be going a bit language nerd  
here):


Considering the wording as applying a specific property whenever the 
rules use "by announcement" with regards to an action does solve the 
active/passive grammatical disparity in R478's sentence (since it would 
be a dependent clause and an independent clause, each in the active 
voice). As for the "by announcement" being in quotes, that can be read 
as simply requiring the exact phrasing.


As another example, an instance in the current rules that I am 
absolutely sure uses definition-by-properties (since I wrote this) is 
this clause from R2162:



A Rule that designates
   a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
   to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
   level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
   switch as secured (at that power level).


This clearly does not give an actual definition for "secured" when 
applied to switches, it merely states the consequences of the Rules 
designating a type of switch as "secured". It looks relatively similar 
to R473's sentence - a quoted term, and a statement of what the 
consequences are when that term is used. A simple text replacement would 
simply not be meaningful here. Although R478's sentence uses a dependent 
clause, I read the two has having the same effect.


Compare this to


The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".

or


To "change" one's vote is to
   retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one.


These examples are clearly actual definitions - they have a linking 
verb, a term, and a meaning. They don't examine what the text of the 
Rules says at all - they just say what a term means. A text substitution 
would be meaningful here.



Anyways, this has been my rant. It probably accomplished nothing, but I 
tried.


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Kerim Aydin]

On 11/9/2019 2:53 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined.



I'm sorry, but this assertion doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the sentence
contains the word "define", but I think the object of "define" is pretty
clearly 'an action (that CAN be performed "by announcement")', and not "by
announcement".


Thanks, you're right about this part - the actual word "define" applies to
where each explicit action is defined elsewhere.  I'll fix that.


Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't give
an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification actually is, just
that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, if there's no hard
definition, then the text-replacement argument kind of falls apart.


Here, I disagree.  I think it reads nicely and sensibly as a straight-up
substitution, i.e. it can be read as when a rule uses "by announcement" in
association with the definition of an action, it means the defined action is
performed "by unambiguously and clearly" etc.  The parts in the quotes still
function as a direct definition/substitution - that's the purpose of the
quotes, to strictly delimit what's being defined.

-G.

Re: DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Jason Cobb]

On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined. 



I'm sorry, but this assertion doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the 
sentence contains the word "define", but I think the object of "define" 
is pretty clearly 'an action (that CAN be performed "by announcement")', 
and not "by announcement".


Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by 
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't 
give an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is 
conceptually similar to how the Rules don't say what ratification 
actually is, just that it has some consequences on the gamestate. And, 
if there's no hard definition, then the text-replacement argument kind 
of falls apart.


--
Jason Cobb

DIS: proto-judgement of 3781

[Kerim Aydin]

Proto-judgement for CFJ 3781:

In the R478 text:

> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

The word "define" indicates that it is a definition, and the quotes
around the term "by announcement" indicate that this is the term being
defined.

The problem with this definitional text is that the grammatical constructs
are mixed. The first part is in passive voice ("CAN be performed") while
the second part is in active voice ("a person performs").  This is a
grammatical error and should be fixed, either by making both active or
both passive (either would be fine and match the intent of this clause).

However, until it is fixed, how can we parse the text?  In particular, the
caller assets that this error is substantive and maps the subject of the
second clause ("a person", by which the caller means "any person") onto
any use of the term being defined ("by announcement"), even if an actual
use case specifies a more limited set of subjects (i.e. a more limited set
of persons who CAN perform the action).

While linguistic definitions should not be treated as strict string
replacements (and must take into account context, grammar, etc.), it is
useful to use a string-replacement approach to see if this works.

The simplest use case of the definition might be:
>  Person A CAN do X by announcement.

The caller's arguments assert that the portion of the definition "a person
performs" is part of that definition, and furthermore, that "a person"
refers to "any person".  So let's try that substitution for "by
announcement" in the simple example:

> Person A CAN do X by any person unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action and announcing that e performs it.

Using this substitution method, we have a grammatical problem: two
subjects (Person A and any person).  This makes, for example, the "e"
ambiguous in terms of who is announced to be performing it.  Also note
that we had to mung the definition by shifting the "by" in "by
unambiguously" to be in front of "any person".  More importantly, it makes
a sentence that is self-contradictory in terms of the causal agent (and we
care about identifying causal agents in Agora) - is it Person A who CAN do
it, or any person who announces it?

So overall, this substitution requires more text manipulation, reads
incorrectly in terms of grammar, and leaves things broken and ambiguous in
terms of who is performing the action.

However, we can use the grammatical cues in the definition to line up the
substitution in a different way, in particular, lining up the "by" in "by
announcement" with the "by" in "by unambiguously".  Under this
interpretation, we get:

> Person A CAN do X by unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action and announcing that e performs it.

This is grammatically clear, requires no text manipulation within the
definition, and matches the fairly clear intent. Therefore, it is
preferred as an operational way to interpret the broken grammar in the
definition, until the grammar is fixed.

Note that this interpretation doesn't ignore or discard the "a person
performs that action by" part of the definition as an inconvenience, it
simply treats it as a synonym for the passive phrasing "that action is
performed by" that matches the first part of the definition.

The result, of course, is that the definition on its own describes how a
person explicitly ENABLED to do X by announcement (e.g. transferring a
coin) goes about doing so, and it does not add any other persons to those
who are explicitly ENABLED.  I find FALSE.