On Nov 30, 2007 2:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R683 states:
> Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the
> first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the
> entity's voting limit on that decision.
> which means that R2134 "voting
Goethe wrote:
- First, "decreate" is (most likely accidentally) a word and concept
useable for assets (i.e. "destroy"). This is ambiguous enough to
invalidate this attempt (CFJ 1814).
But the target of this verb is VLOP, which (as you mention in the
next paragraph) isn't an asset. No
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
>> Bad definition. With real numbers, "decrease" means "move towards
>> negative infinity", not "move towards zero". Similarly, "increase"
>> means "move towards positive infinity".
>
> Um, but isn't this the same thing
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Um, but isn't this the same thing I said? That "moving towards
>negative infinity" by a negative amount is actually moving towards
>positive infinity?
Here we run into the definitional problem that I mentioned in my final
paragraph. I thought you had intended "move towards .
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Bad definition. With real numbers, "decrease" means "move towards
> negative infinity", not "move towards zero". Similarly, "increase"
> means "move towards positive infinity".
Um, but isn't this the same thing I said? That "moving towards
negative infinit
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> - There is nothing restricting VLOPs to non-negative.
BVLOP is always non-negative, due to its fixed nature. EVLOP is always
integer, due to the way it's set, and otherwise has the same numerical
range as VVLOP. VVLOP is always rational, due to the way it is modified,
and is
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> Rule 2156 tries to round it to an integer. From this I would say that it
> could be negative, but not complex or green cheese.
Thoughts:
- First, "decreate" is (most likely accidentally) a word and concept
useable for assets (i.e. "destroy"). This is am
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It looks like VLOPs are "parameters", but I don't see a typing anywhere,
> other then that their default values happen to be non-negative integers.
> Is there anything I'm missing forbidding their values from being
> negative, complex, or for that
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> While VCs are things, VVLOP is a number.
It looks like VLOPs are "parameters", but I don't see a typing anywhere,
other then that their default values happen to be non-negative integers.
Is there anything I'm missing forbidding their values from being nega
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> I am not trying to use -1 of an asset! While VCs are things, VVLOP is a
> number.
Gotcha. I'll have another look and think. -G.
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> > I hereby, in linked fashion, assign Goethe as judge of CFJs 1813-1814.
>
> Proto-semi-judgment
>
> Assets are described in the rules as physical, countable, tangible
> things.
>
> When we've had past rules abo
Goethe wrote:
Precedent is mixed on whether "spend 0 VCs" is an action (see CFJ 1444 vs.
CFJ 1456). I also remember a stronger precedent with regard to fees that
supports the caller's arguments, but I also haven't found it on a cursory
look, may look deeper later. At this point, I do not rely
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I hereby, in linked fashion, assign Goethe as judge of CFJs 1813-1814.
Proto-semi-judgment
Assets are described in the rules as physical, countable, tangible things.
When we've had past rules about such objects, we had a strong custom and
precedent (e.g.
13 matches
Mail list logo
