Taral wrote:
> Zefram is a Player.
>
>Repeal the Rule just created.
I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule
along the lines of
This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately
40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf sta
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X?
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even an ordered ring.
Hm, it seems I was mistaken.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You c
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of U
Maud wrote:
On 1/12/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows,
maybe even Kelly would like it.
I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was
decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue
instead of rec
On 1/12/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I know. Hence why I prefer the polynomial ratio construction.
Are you talking about the Schmieden--Laugwitz construction (using a cofinite
filter)? Their construction produces a ring with zero divisors, and
it isn't even
an ordered ring.
--
Mi
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have
On 1/12/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
> actually construct a free ultrafilter.
Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter because it's
impossible to do so.
H
Zefram wrote:
> This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
A wider range of voting tactics. Specifically, if a vote is lackluster
in turnout, you can sink it by not voting, rather than voting AGAINST,
when an AGAINST vote wouldn't be enough to sink it. Turns not voting
into an
Maud wrote:
I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was
decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue
instead of reconstructing the gamestate.
Y'know, that always bugged me too.
-Goethe
On 1/12/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
of selecting a reasonable ordering for the index. Who knows,
maybe even Kelly would like it.
I believe Kelly maintains that we quit playing Agora when it was
decided (*not* by me) to handwave away the Annabel issue
instead of reconstructing th
I wrote:
And if all parties to an agreement have consented, it would
substantially abridge the rights of the Players in R101 if we
*didn't* assume prima facie that the change was valid.
Ps. It's possible, following this argument, that if *all*
"indices" are broken or unordered, then the *o
One other aspect of Agoran common custom is that this is a legal
game before a logic/mathematical one, and we've used in the past
legal reasonableness to sidestep the more trivial paradoxes.
Especially true in the current, slimmed-down ruleset.
In legal terms, "Unanimous" means "having the ag
> "Unanimity is less than or equal to 1" is false.
Tell that to Mrs. Slocum.
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collec
--- I wrote:
>
> Amend Rule 955, "Determining the Will of Agora", by appending the
> following:
>
> A voting index of Unanimity shall be understood to exceed one,
> and
> to meet or exceed any adoption index.
>
>
This fulfils the same job as zefram's proposal, but without introduci
Zefram wrote:
>No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect
>to any real number. So "Unanimity is greater than 1" is false, and
>"Unanimity is not greater than 1" is also false.
Oops, thinko.
"Unanimity is not greater than 1" is true, being the contrary of
"Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your
>argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than
>any positive rational number.
No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect
to any real number. So "Unanimity is g
Zefram wrote:
Same time as Unanimity went, presumably. They were in the same Rule.
Ah yes, Rule 1274 was repealed by The Cobalt Repeals, June 20, 2005.
Uh, adopted Unanimously.
Maud, is there some hidden trick that R1274 is unnecessary due to
common mathematical language, or were all prop
Zefram wrote:
> judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
> i.e. use its old definition.
I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of
action:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that enti
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Uh oh, when did the definition "Index = real number" disappear from
>the Ruleset.
Same time as Unanimity went, presumably. They were in the same Rule.
-zefram
Grey Knight wrote:
I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".
Uh oh, when did the definition "Index = real number" disappear from
the Ruleset. Can't pin this one on me, it wasn't there a month
before the Great Repeals (just checked).
Maud, was this part of Co
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up
to the Rulekeepor's discretion.
Archduke Agora never had a title before -- it had a name. And the
name ought to be up to the parent...
"I see no reason to let this ge
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I argued against the repeal of R1020. I lost.
Taking a sentence from Rule 105:
# If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e
# sees fit.
it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up
to the Rulekeepor's discretion.
-ze
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
>i.e. use its old definition.
I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of
action:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entit
Michael Slone wrote:
>You have not clearly identified anything except your intent to vote
>AGAINST things.
It seemed pretty clear to me. E unambiguously specified which things
e was voting AGAINST.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
>Where the rules are not silent, game custom is irrelevant.
The rules are silent on whether sentences from them can be taken out
of context and applied as rules in isolation. Ordinary English usage,
game custom, and the best interests of the game are the controlling
standards
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. The quoted sentence is in the section that is concerned
with modifying rules. Enactments are governed by section (a) which has
no such restriction for the case where the proposal does not specify the
power of the new rule. Game custom d
On 1/12/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do I need to care?
It depends on whether you want to submit ballots or just talk about
it. See rule 683 (b):
(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
You have not clearly identified anything except your intent to
On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I *hate* the ultrapower construction, because nobody's been able to
actually construct a free ultrafilter.
Nobody's been able to construct a free ultrafilter because it's
impossible to do so.
Hope this helps.
--
Michael Slone
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Nope, Rule 955 prevents it:
Ah, you're right. I missed that.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
>The following sentence appears in rule 105:
>
>However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have
> power greater than its own.
>
>This doesn't appear to affect Murphy's elegant scam, but it does imply
>that Zefram's scam wouldn't work.
I disagree. The q
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
What's the advantage?
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal
>it through another scam, if you want my vote.
The scam is that only a simple majority is required, due to the bug in
Rule 105. Actually I could set the AI of the repeal to 0.01 and
then I wouldn't
Michael Slone wrote:
>Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years.
That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered.
Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the
references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their
previous seman
35 matches
Mail list logo
