Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)
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 Jacobsonwrote: > > >> 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?)
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > > 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?)
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?)
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?)
I think I'm OK with supporting that interpretation. 天火狐 On 20 June 2017 at 16:09, Kerim Aydinwrote: > > > 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?)
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?)
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?)
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 Aydinwrote: > > > 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?)
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?)
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?)
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticuswrote: > 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?)
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 Aydinwrote: > > > > 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?)
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?)
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...]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)
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 Aydinwrote: > > > 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?)
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?)
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 Radawrote: > 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. >> > >