I'll write a second draft then. Shouldn't we have some better guidelines as to what makes a paper eligible for a certain degree? Or do such guidelines already exist? Is it based on previously submitted papers?
-Thimblefox > Am 23.02.2014 um 22:20 schrieb Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>: > > > > Under the new Degree Rule (R1367), degrees SHOULD be explicitly subject > to peer review. > > I know at least one conversation has occurred. As Herald, I: > (1) encourage more critique, and; > (2) greatly encourage thimblefox to produce a second version that > responds to comments so far. > > Content aside, I think the length and depth of this submission (about > equivalent to a long judgement) would be appropriate for an Associate's > Degree. Happy to discuss this! > > I'll intend to award an A.N. following some more time for discussion, > provided a second draft is produced that responds to peer review. Note > that any player CAN make the intent if they disagree with the process, > though I suggest coordination... I'm doing this under a SHOULD, not > under a MUST. > > >> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brian Blomlie wrote: >> I’d like to sign myself up on the judges’ list. Also I’m applying for a >> degree for my paper. >> >> My paper for your consideration: >> >> „On contradictions arising from assuming that winning by escape velocity >> ends the game“ >> by Thimblefox (15th February, 2014) >> >> -Introduction- >> >> In this paper I intend to prove that the game ending does not follow from >> winning the game by escape velocity, and furthermore that it leads to >> contradiction. I also intend to show what contradictions arise from assuming >> that winning ends, or is in itself the act of ending the game. Finally I >> intend to show how winning the game without the game ending is the only >> logically consistent way of winning the game. >> >> -Methodology- >> >> For the purposes of this paper „winning“ refers to winning the game by >> reaching escape velocity. We will also define „is won“ as meaning that there >> exists at least one player having escape velocity. Furthermore „has been >> won“ means that a player has had escape velocity. „To end“ means here, being >> terminated. >> >> -First thesis- >> The contradiction consisting in having escape velocity and a score of 0 >> >> If there is a player of Agora who has escape velocity, then there doesn’t >> exist a player that has escape velocity. Here I’m making the assumption that >> the rule is to be read logically, in which case you have „one or more >> specified players have achieved escape velocity“ and „all players’ scores >> are set to 0“ happening at the same time.‹1› This is obviously a >> contradiction, and not a logically consistent way of winning the game. >> >> -Second thesis- >> The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by/being the game >> ending, without the score being reset >> >> Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) >> being ended and finally (c) the scores being reset. If the game is won and >> then ended (or winning is ending the game), the scores cannot be reset. The >> scores being reset follows necessarily from winning the game, but can’t >> follow if the game has ended. Therefore it isn’t possible for the game to be >> won, end and then finally the score being reset. Nor is it possible for the >> game to be won and end at the same time, being followed by the score being >> reset. >> >> A counter-argument would be saying that if you want to play a new game >> (here: after the game has ended), you would have to reset the score. But >> this obviously doesn’t work out for the simple reason that there would be no >> game for which you could reset the score if the game had ended. >> >> For the same reason CFJ 3400 couldn’t have been judged TRUE, because it >> would then make a truth statement within the confines of the game itself >> about the game having been ended at a previous time, which would be a >> contradiction, because the game obviously hasn’t ended. This is therefore >> not a logically consistent way of winning the game. >> >> -Third thesis- >> The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by the score being >> reset and the game ending thereafter >> >> Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) >> the score being reset, followed by (c) the game ending. If the game is won, >> the score will be reset. If the score has been reset, the game isn’t won >> anymore, therefore there would be no reason to end the game. From this it >> seems plausible to conclude that the game being ended must follow from the >> game being won. This is the only logically consistent way of winning the >> game, it does not however, and cannot, follow that the game is ended because >> of winning the game in this manner, as has been shown. >> >> -Conclusions- >> >> It follows from the above that resetting the score must follow from winning >> the game, and that this is the only logically consistent way of winning the >> game. It has also been shown that ending the game cannot be, nor can it >> follow from winning the game. Because in the first case resetting the score >> cannot follow from winning the game, which would be a contradiction. In the >> second case ending the game would be pointless, because it wouldn’t be won >> anymore due to the score reset. It also follows that the game cannot judge >> the game to have ended within the confines of the game itself. It would seem >> then that ending the game transcends the possibilities of what can be done >> within the framework of the game itself. >> >> -Citation- >> >> ‹1› Excerpts from R2419. >> >> -Further reading- >> >> ‹1› Agora-business, February 2014 >> ‹2› Agora-discussion, February 2014
