> On Oct 25, 2017, at 2:14 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be >> uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive >> Income”: >> >> * 8 sh. to ProofTechnique >> * 8 sh. to ais523 >> * 4 sh. to G. > > The payments to G. were ineffective, as e was not eligible to receive them. > This means I need to decompose the distribution to debug it and fix it, which > is - I think - what G. specifically warned me about. I spent some effort > trying to work out what actually happened, but as there is no unique > distribution of sh. for which the previous attempt could be successful, I > believe it failed outright due to ambiguity. > > Because this failed, I believe ais523’s attempt to buy a stamp also failed. > > The following chart shows the correct distribution of shinies, and I cause > Agora to pay 1 sh. to each recipient listed below, in order. In total, this > will cause Agora to pay: > > * ProofTechnique: 8 sh. > * ais523: 8 sh. > * Gaelan: 4 sh. > > # Recipient Gaelan PT[1] ais523 (registration order, > earliest-to-latest) > -------------------------------------- > 0 4 sh. 0 sh. 0 sh. > 1 PT[1] 4 sh. 1 sh. 0 sh. > 2 ais523 4 sh. 1 sh. 1 sh. > 3 PT[1] 4 sh. 2 sh. 1 sh. > 4 ais523 4 sh. 2 sh. 2 sh. > 5 PT[1] 4 sh. 3 sh. 2 sh. > 6 ais523 4 sh. 3 sh. 3 sh. > 7 PT[1] 4 sh. 4 sh. 3 sh. > 8 ais523 4 sh. 4 sh. 4 sh. > 9 Gaelen 5 sh. 4 sh. 4 sh. > 10 PT[1] 5 sh. 5 sh. 4 sh. > 11 ais523 5 sh. 5 sh. 5 sh. > 12 Gaelan 6 sh. 5 sh. 5 sh. > 13 PT[1] 6 sh. 6 sh. 5 sh. > 14 ais523 6 sh. 6 sh. 6 sh. > 15 Gaelan 7 sh. 6 sh. 6 sh. > 16 PT[1] 7 sh. 7 sh. 6 sh. > 17 ais523 7 sh. 7 sh. 7 sh. > 18 Gaelan 8 sh. 7 sh. 7 sh. > 19 PT[1] 8 sh. 8 sh. 7 sh. > 20 ais523 8 sh. 8 sh. 8 sh.
Because I specified each individual payment, it’s likely that this partially succeeded. On that assumption, if ais523 was not a player (as also seems likely), then the following payments from the above table appear to be consistent with the rules, and therefore succeeded: # Recipient Gaelan PT[1] (registration order, earliest-to-latest) ----------------------------- 0 4 sh. 0 sh. 1 PT[1] 4 sh. 1 sh. 10 PT[1] 4 sh. 2 sh. 13 PT[1] 4 sh. 3 sh. 16 PT[1] 4 sh. 4 sh. 18 Gaelan 5 sh. 4 sh. 19 PT[1] 5 sh. 5 sh. The remainder failed as they were not possible at that time. The outstanding CFJ makes it a bit awkward to actually determine which occurred. nichdel, I await your judgement with bated breath. I’ll hold off on publishing a fix, but this is going to goof up my recordkeeping worse the longer it exists. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
