On 6/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems like bad terminology to me, since the same numbers (whatever
they might be) are computable. I'm not sure what would be better.
Non-computable image, perhaps?
s/are computable/are computable by other means/
-root
On 6/21/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by "computable natural number"? In the sense meant
> by "computable real number", all natural numbers are trivially
> computable. I can envision that a natural number might be called
On 6/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you mean by "computable natural number"? In the sense meant
by "computable real number", all natural numbers are trivially
computable. I can envision that a natural number might be called
computable if it is the Godel number of a computab
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:09:30PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Zefram wrote:
>
> >Ed Murphy wrote:
> >>I'm thinking "SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a
> >>smaller number might be invalid".
> >
> >Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent
> >documents
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking "SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a
smaller number might be invalid".
Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent
documents, such as a published ruleset, I shouldn't have to reuse it if
the entity numbe
On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have an idea for preventing the use of really colossal numbers: require
that the ID number being assigned be stated explicitly as a decimal
literal in the assigning announcement. No chained arrow notation for us.
That doesn't prevent them; it jus
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I'm thinking "SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a
>smaller number might be invalid".
Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent
documents, such as a published ruleset, I shouldn't have to reuse it if
the entity numbered turns out not
On 6/21/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think e has something more ambitious in mind. I didn't grasp the
> relevance of "computable numbers" when we're explicitly limiting this
> to natural numbers. But perhaps e plans to use Graham's numbe
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(c) Each ID number SHOULD be as small as possible. A player
may, with Agoran consent, make an entity's ID number chaotic.
Also need "an ID number is orderly by default". Possibly also explicate
that "orderly" and "chaotic" are antonymous. Yo
On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think e has something more ambitious in mind. I didn't grasp the
relevance of "computable numbers" when we're explicitly limiting this
to natural numbers. But perhaps e plans to use Graham's number, or a
length-17 chained arrow expression (using C
Ed Murphy wrote:
>(c) Each ID number SHOULD be as small as possible. A player
>may, with Agoran consent, make an entity's ID number chaotic.
Also need "an ID number is orderly by default". Possibly also explicate
that "orderly" and "chaotic" are antonymous. You could also up
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Create a rule titled "ID Numbers" with this text:
Can someone explain, and use small words so I'm sure to understand,
precisely why a system that has worked very well for a very long
time needs a new, long, rule? The current system will have the
occasional glitch
BobTHJ wrote:
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
That's what (e) is for. But even if we do make a mistake, the
Murphy wrote:
> Create a rule titled "ID Numbers" with this text:
Can someone explain, and use small words so I'm sure to understand,
precisely why a system that has worked very well for a very long
time needs a new, long, rule? The current system will have the
occasional glitch that requires a
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
BobTHJ
On 6/20/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry I didn't notice thi
bd_ wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number greater than any orderly ID number previously
assigned to an entit
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 10:25:52PM -0400, bd_ wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
> > (AI = 3, please)
> >
> > (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
> > natural number greater than any o
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
> natural number greater than any orderly ID number previously
> assigned to an entity o
Eris wrote:
Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a
statement that ID numbers must be unique.
Huh? Oh, I see the problem. Revised text:
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number distinct from any ID number, and g
Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a
statement that ID numbers must be unique.
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled "ID Numbers" with this text:
If a rule defines a type
20 matches
Mail list logo
