Ed Murphy wrote: >Rule 2136 (Contests) does not explicitly specify that scores are >real, not to mention whatever future rules might be adopted.
Score is the "number of points possessed". To me this is inherently a real number. If we defined points to be quanta then score would be inherently integral, or perhaps natural, depending on the details. But points are not very clearly defined there. What should be the score be restricted to? Rationals, integers, naturals? > * Number of ballots (presumably natural, but what happens when > Quazie attempts to vote 2+3i x FOR? R683) Can't vote (2+3i) * FOR. A multiple vote is not a single action with a numeric parameter; it's a repetition of a quantum of action. The base action is voting FOR; the number of times that it is performed is inherently natural. It's impossible to vote i times, or (for that matter) half a time. By the way, "FOR * 2" is more correct than "2 * FOR". "FOR * 2" means a FOR plus a second FOR, which is what is actually happening. "2 * FOR" properly means some number of 2s, with FOR as the repeat count, which is nonsensical. Of course, we're all accustomed to treating multiplication as commutative, which it is among the real numbers. One has to go to quaternions or transfinite ordinals to get non-commutative multiplication among numbers. >Never mind all the rules that carry out mathematics without using >"number", in which case R1023(a) may not apply anyway. I'd certainly judge that it does not apply. >amending it to "All mathematics is restricted to real numbers >unless explicitly specified otherwise". In what situation do you envision this making a difference? Where we have a mathematical formula on certain inputs, the result either is real or is not depending on the inputs; you can't just legislate for it to be real. -zefram
