On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I host the Agoran Coat of Arms, or may I link to your copy, or
should I just remove the image?
I didn't create it. I assume that the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I host the Agoran Coat of Arms, or may I link to your copy, or
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:
An equitable resolution of the situation would be for ais523 to
destroy one 3 Crop and one 9 Crop.
I hereby solicit comments from
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:40:51 pm Alexander Smith wrote:
Wooble wrote:
I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket
contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ.
ehird and BobTHJ
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 09:09:23 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which I think is what this is trying to get at, the concept of
logical tautology.
A statement
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:49 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, right.
What's the word for the truth-value of this statement is true? I
can't find it on Wikipedia.
Indeterminate?
Floyd?
I don't know that there is a
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
described as either true or false
* FLOYD, appropriate if the statement logically
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Such a statement is a Henkin statement, if I remember correctly.
Henkin sentence. Close enough.
-root
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following contract, called Not a rule really:
{{{
This is a public contract and a pledge.
ais523 CAN terminate this contract by announcement.
The
Rule /0 (Power=4)
Dictatorship
ais523 may change the
On 24 Oct 2008, at 07:42, Ian Kelly wrote:
GreyKnight both came up with the heraldry and created the image. Eir
domain appears to be gone, but eir email was yahoo, and I assume it
probably still works.
I had luck contacting him via MemoServ on freenode (e was apparently
an #esoteric
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:02 -0500
Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:03:50 pm Sgeo wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I host the Agoran Coat of Arms, or may I link to your copy, or
should I just remove the
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for a pledge, all first-class persons should be witnesses by default.
Seems like a good idea. Witnesses should also be barred from judging
related equity cases.
The two of those together would bar everyone from judging
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors.
Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has
contributed versus a player who hasn't? What if a player contributed to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 07:49, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Ruleset has multiple authors.
Would there be a distinction between the legal rights of someone who has
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:05 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
I intend, without objection, to make Speaker pikhq inactive.
Having received no
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:05, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat and avpx.
I intend, without objection, to make Speaker pikhq inactive.
Having received
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Having received no objections, I make H. Speaker pikhq inactive. May
death come quickly to Speaker BobTHJ's enemies!
Hooray! I'd like to thank my agent
And just in time for both prerogatives and promotions. BobTHJ, it looks
like you can accept
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
The Poet Laureate its name:
There is an office Poet Laureate,
Which no one but a
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
The Poet Laureate its
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
Bravo! You'd have my vote if you sent this to the public forum.
Not mine, though, as it's insufficiently Powerful to allow wins. (You
need Power 2 for that.)
--
ais523
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
There is an office Poet Laureate,
Which no one but a Bard can occupy.
So long eir post e doesn't abdicate,
Eir weekly duties are that e must try
To make a new Proposal to amend
A Rule, still writ in prose, to verse and
Some tweaks to http://sgeo.diagonalfish.net/agora/newmain.htm done,
tried adding information on the recent situation with The Monster, but
##nomic said it was unnecessary and inaccurate, so I removed it. Still
not sure what the Canada stuff is about.
root wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
described as either true or false
* FLOYD, appropriate if the statement
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:43, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-deposit four 7 crops (I think this gets me ^30).
You only deposit two 7 crops as that is all you have.
I PBA-deposit four 9 crops (I think this gets me ^90).
You only deposit one 9 crop as that is all you have.
I
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:29:50 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't mind a weekly proposal, but completing eir monthly reports
is dependent on voters wanting their rules to rhyme? Not an office
I'd personally take.
I assume that if voters don't want their rules to rhyme then this
proposal won't
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote:
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the
contract are also unqualified, except while this would result
in all entities being
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:51, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 10:35 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:06, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I initiate an RBOA Bank Motion to modify exchange rates as follows:
Coins - 5
1 Crops - 70
5
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.
I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.
It doesn't. Recorded at http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report;
basically no
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:01, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I withdraw 74 coins from the RBoA for 395 chits.
I'm considering this an effective withdraw of 74 coins for a cost of 444 chits.
BobTHJ
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:32, Alex Smith wrote:
According to ehird's website, Murphy only had ^43 at that point.
ehird,
care to make that official?
I already said that to a-d.
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.
I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient coins to make this RBOA deposit.
It doesn't.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:06, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since that probably failed, I instead withdraw 65 coins for 390 chits.
(I rounded in the wrong place I think)
Here you succeed in withdrawing 11 Coins for 66 chits, leaving you
with 2 chits remaining.
BobTHJ
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:34, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:31, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
I RBoA-deposit ^50 for 500 chits.
I'll assume for now that this works, though ehird please let me know
if Murphy has insufficient
On 24 Oct 2008, at 18:36, Roger Hicks wrote:
Here you succeed in withdrawing 11 Coins for 66 chits, leaving you
with 2 chits remaining.
Now come on. instead and the context clearly means it shouldn't
happen if the previous
succeeded.
--
ehird
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:14, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
Actually, how about as an Epic?
Create the following Rule (simultaneous transcription from old
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Pavitra wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:29:50 am Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't mind a weekly proposal, but completing eir monthly reports
is dependent on voters wanting their rules to rhyme? Not an office
I'd personally take.
I assume that if voters don't want their
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
described
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I PBA-withdraw two 0 crops for ^3+^4 = ^7.
I RBoA-deposit two 0 crops for 25*2=50 Chits.
I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
--
You net 1 coin and 2 chits out of thiscongratulations.
More importantly, the new rate
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 07:12 -0400, Joshua Boehme wrote:
I join Enigma.
There's still time to submit solutions to the current Enigma puzzle! For
everyone who hasn't submitted a solution, this week's puzzle is at
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No objection, and general approval, to a rule giving a bard a win
if e manages weekly displays of wit, poetry, etc. with some
approval method for quality (e.g. through proposal). I'm just not
sure if constant proposals to
BobTHJ wrote:
If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the
And where is the Treasurer defined?
Wooble wrote:
(partial report at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/tailor)
You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:40 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I PBA-withdraw 8 Coins for 48 Chits.
Come again?
Obviously ineffective. I sent a corrected version in the next message.
--
ais523
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:38, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the
And where is the Treasurer defined?
Section 3 of the RBoA:
{
3. Chits are a currency. The Treasurer is the recordkeeper of Chits.
Initially
Pavitra wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 11:14:43 am Ed Murphy wrote:
The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the
contract are also unqualified, except while this would result
in all entities
This is just a reminder to BobTHJ that Scorekeepor is high-priority; e
seems to have forgotten for a couple of weeks in a row. I'm not crimming
em over this, not yet anyway, partly due to all the trouble I've been
causing em lately...
--
ais523
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that
ais523 violated Rule 2143 by failing to publish a Mad Scientist's
report for the week of 6 Oct. 2008.
Rule 2192(d) establishes that the Mad Scientist
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:38, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
If the Treasurer and the RBoA are both members of this contract, the
And where is the Treasurer defined?
Section 3 of the RBoA:
{
3.
On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:42, Ed Murphy wrote:
I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.
BobTHJ?
--
ehird
On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:43, Ed Murphy wrote:
You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
Sidebar.
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:49, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is just a reminder to BobTHJ that Scorekeepor is high-priority; e
seems to have forgotten for a couple of weeks in a row. I'm not crimming
em over this, not yet anyway, partly due to all the trouble I've been
causing em
root wrote:
FLOYD is specifically limited to logical interpretation, not legal
interpretation. In particular, the paradox that led to my win in
December 2006 depended on two equally-plausible legal interpretations,
of which one was eventually discarded for entirely practical reasons
(we
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wooble wrote:
(partial report at http://www.nomictools.com/agora/tailor)
You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
Umm, it's the only link in the sidebar.
root wrote:
Not really. The Mad Scientist's weekly duty is just to create the
proposal. There's also some useless verbiage about how the proposal
constitutes the Mad Scientist's report if it's adopted, but that
portion of eir duties is always either absent or trivially fulfilled.
The
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Logical: This statement is true. On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
Legal: Goethe was a player at appropriate time c. December
2006. According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent
and FALSE is not;
ehird wrote:
On 24 Oct 2008, at 19:43, Ed Murphy wrote:
You should link to this from http://www.nomictools.com/
Sidebar.
Ah, I missed that everything under Useful links was external. Also,
the sidebar's color scheme is hard to read.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:42, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.
218 coins for 1308 chits leaving you with 5 chits remaining.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:22, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:42, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I RBoA-withdraw as many coins as I can.
218 coins for 1308 chits leaving you with 5 chits remaining.
BobTHJ
NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logical: This statement is true. On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
Legal: Goethe was a player at appropriate time c. December
2006. According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 14:37, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taral wrote:
I harvest 955, an amended power 3 rule, for 8 crops.
If I have at least two 9 crops and at least two 5 crops, I harvest
995, the number
On 24 Oct 2008, at 20:26, Roger Hicks wrote:
NOTE: After this withdraw I show the RBoA having 260 coins remaining.
The PBA would seem to have a different figure. What's the difference?
I dunno. I don't have your recent change history; you have the PBA's.
Search for 'RBoA',
all the lines
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 02:46:07 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
AVAILABLE TICKETS
Pavitra
BUY - 3VP - Agree to the Crescendo pledge
CoE: This has since been filled by ais523.
Admitted, thanks.
BobTHJ
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logical: This statement is true. On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
Legal: Goethe was a player at appropriate time c. December
2006. According to
On 24 Oct 2008, at 21:39, comex wrote:
I agree to the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge. Bones are a currency. The Treasurer is the
recordkeeper of Bones. Initially the Treasurer is comex.
}
Royal Bank of UNDEAD!
--
ehird
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logical: This statement is true. On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
Legal:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
themselves; there
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 14:52 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
Scorekeepor's Scoreboard
Player Score
Quazie13
pikhq 6
Murphy82
Wooble12
ais52368
OscarMeyr 12
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:14:29 -0500
Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Bards are Three! Let's celebrate
And not this moment shun --
Proposal, Poet Laureate,
AI and II 1:
{
[Ordain an Office for us who'll
Ensure that prose stays not the same.]
At Power 1, create a Rule,
The Poet
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or
at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
e was so nominated.
Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?
--
Taral [EMAIL
ehird wrote:
I join the Fantasy Rules Committee, just to bump up its maximum point
award.
ITYM Contest.
root wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logical: This statement is true. On the basis of logic alone,
either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent.
Legal: Goethe was a player at appropriate time c. December
2006. According to one legal interpretation,
On 24 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
ITYM Contest.
ITYM unambiguous.
--
ehird
Taral wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accept this nomination. I also predict that Taral will decline (or
at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
e was so nominated.
Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?
root wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually, how about as an Epic?
Create the following Rule (simultaneous transcription from old
Agoran):
What language did you use as old Agoran? And what does Blob have
to do with the first stanza?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly
unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable
by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't
object, due to
On 24 Oct 2008, at 23:36, 0x44 wrote:
I become party to the Fantasy Rules Contest.
I become a Farmer.
I become party to the Vote Market.
I believe you would like the PBA. ;-)
--
ehird
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
themselves; there was just uncertainty as to
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the
Yay, a parallel text!
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O Agorans, now gather and hear me speak,'Tha Agorae masor forae nont
Agorae = Agorans, nont = speak?
Beneath the fountain's spray andUnttri fontaine siphora
Unttri = beneath, fontaine =
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, warrigal wrote:
Listen, amongst the sounds of the Heara, heara, const heara,
Heara = listen, const = amongst? of?
Not bad overall!
One thing to remember this is an epic. In this example, the absolute literal
translation is sound, sound, around[us] sound.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The paradox was the question of who judged CFJ 1594. This was before
judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox. -Goethe
I realize that. The fact that you consulted two potential oracles and
both said I'm
warrigal wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 04:10:14 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
* FLOYD, appropriate if the statement was logically capable
of being described as either true or false with equal accuracy
Accuracy may be
Goethe wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change
gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining
gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating
themselves; there was just
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the rules are ambiguous wrt interpretation, then FLOYD is not
appropriate.
Why not, exactly? If the rules are ambiguous, then indeed the
statement logically could have been described as either true or false,
depending on
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
The paradox was the question of who judged CFJ 1594. This was before
judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox. -Goethe
Before what, now? Self-referential questions (e.g. This statement is
false) are specifically
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 15:09, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or as an alternative idea, the Poet Laureate could write verses on recent
Agoran history.
Here's an idea: The Poet Laureate adds a new stanza to a specific
certain rule each week, building upon previous stanzas. After a
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The paradox was the question of who judged CFJ 1594. This was before
judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox. -Goethe
I realize that. The fact that you consulted
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes it does. Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case
that says A is the judge of case X can't be judged true (for it
implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it implies e is).
No, it doesn't. If the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification
VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about
why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
and hope nobody appeals it. The role of
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification
VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about
why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Oct 2008, at 22:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
ITYM Contest.
ITYM unambiguous.
I wouldn't say so, considering that the same message sent to frc-play
would have a totally different effect.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes it does. Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case
that says A is the judge of case X can't be judged true (for it
implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it doesn't. If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A
is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged
it correctly (but invalidly). A might later be vindicated by further
debate of
Proto: Appeals of Consensus (AI=2)
Add the following paragraph to Rule 2158:
The judge who delivered the most recent judgement in a judicial
question CAN, between four and fourteen days later, assign a new
valid judgement to that question without objection.
[Save appeal panels
comex wrote:
5808 D 0 2.0 Murphy Fix OVERLOOKED
AGAINST, I don't really think the old version is a valid loophole, but
this sure has the potential to be. I can see what it's supposed to
mean (the rule breach it alleged was at least 200 days...) but it
could easily be
Tweak veracity a lot, adoption index 1.7:
{Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by replacing the paragraph beginning
with An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, with
this text:
{An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always
applicable. The valid judgements for
comex wrote:
(Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
as that one.)
I forget which of us actually came up with the idea.
Proto-proto: Patent Title of Medalist, to be awarded by a person
who won within the past week to one or more other persons whose
cooperation was
comex wrote:
Proto: Appeals of Consensus (AI=2)
Add the following paragraph to Rule 2158:
The judge who delivered the most recent judgement in a judicial
question CAN, between four and fourteen days later, assign a new
valid judgement to that question without objection.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
(Then again, rarely do we encounter a paradox as beautiful
as that one.)
I forget which of us actually came up with the idea.
Naw, that one was all you from what I remember.
You assigned it to me out of mischief, perhaps. I posted this:
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
