Kerim Aydin wrote: > Interesting. Making random choices is one of those things that used to > be covered by the Rules, but it was repealed because a precedent was > straightforward. All of R1079's (a-e) below are reasonable precedents > where the rules are silent (especially as (e) defers to the courts) with > the exception of (b) which is the key here. At the time of the repeal, > all random choices were associated with the person who makes the choice > so this wasn't an issue. A stretch that the recordkeepor could coalesce > unknown randomness into known randomness by making an after-the- > fact random selection; there's an indirect precedent that it's the > process of making the randomness known, not rolling the dice, that > resolves the action (CFJ 1435). Still even that was associated with an > act (making a random choice) and here it's pretty clear that the rules > say "something random happens platonically upon event X". > > Rule 1079/4 (Power=1) > Definition of "Random" > > (a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the > choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution > among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making > that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability > distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall > be used. > > (b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a > particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker. > > (c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a > Player may rely on any physical or computational process > whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes > is reasonably close to that required by the Rules. > > (d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid that > is not specially weighted has a probability distribution > among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to > uniform. > > (e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of > whether a method's probability distribution among the > possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by > the Rules.
The question then is: does the mathematical meaning (R754(3)) of "random" imply that the random choice is made platonically and invisibly, or does it leave that to "other Agoran legal documents" (R754(4)), arguably including former Rules and probably including past judicial precedents, to determine? If the former, the rule is broken. If the latter, we may be okay. Is anyone here a mathematician of randomness?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
