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,
> 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
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 i
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.
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 di
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
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
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
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 la
>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 "c
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
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
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,
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
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 pre
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 kn
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
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. Ima
18 matches
Mail list logo
