Sorry about missing this assignment. My laptop had a logic board failure and I, unfortunately, had a bit of an adventure getting it replaced. Catching up on about 18 days of backlogged emails now.
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 17:58, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > ============================== CFJ 3449 ============================== > > I possess the patent title "Head of the Agoran Ceremonial Mint". > > ======================================================================== > > Called by scshunt: 15 Jul 2015 22:58:07 > Assigned to aranea: 21 Jul 2015 15:55:44 > Judged FALSE: 28 Jul 2015 12:36:44 > Reconsideration requested by scshunt: 28 Jul 2015 12:50:17 > Reconsideration requested by omd: 28 Jul 2015 16:20:27 > Reconsideration requested by aranea: 29 Jul 2015 07:59:18 > Reconsideration initiated by G.: 29 Jul 2015 15:36:03 > aranea recused: 06 Aug 2015 01:45:32 > Assigned to Tekneek: 06 Aug 2015 01:45:32 > Tekneek recused: now > Assigned to G.: now > > ======================================================================== > > <[email protected]> > Exhibit by ais523: > > I think you can plausibly argue that the referent of "its" in rule 106 > is ambiguous; if it refers to the decision rather than the rule, nothing > is broken. > Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined > value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this situation > is to calculate the result as 4. > > ======================================================================== > > <camqxvwvh40kr+q-fdnqpzfknl-itzxqm3sxajnfvbh32qp9...@mail.gmail.com> > Exhibit by scshunt: > > As comex pointed out in the discussion forum, Proposal 7448 was > submitted without an AI and purported to award me that Title, but was > assumed to have failed to do so due to insufficient AI. > If ais523's argument that the "minimum of 4 and its adotion index" is > in fact 4, however, it succeeded. > > ======================================================================== > > <[email protected]> > Judgement by aranea: > > Note: I've had some troubles finding a ruleset from Jun 2013 (when the > resolution of proposal 7448 took place). I believe the relevant rules > cited below existed back then, but I'm not 100% sure. > "its adoption index" in R106 refers to the proposal, not to the > decision, as the other "its" and the "it" in the same sentence also > refer to the proposal. So if a proposal doesn't has an adoption index > of "none", this results in fact in the power of the proposal being set > to the minimum of four and "none". > I agree with ais523's interpretation that the the minimum of four and > none is four; mathematically, this seems to make sense: If we assume > {'none'} = {} and "minimum of a and b := min {a,b}", then "minimum of > none and four" evaluates to min {'none',4} = min {4} = 4. > However, I don't believe proposal 7448's adoption index actually _was_ > 'none' at the time R106 was applied to it. According to R2034, > "A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes > self-ratifying claims that [..] (if the indicated outcome was to adopt > a proposal) such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.". > The message resolving the relevant decision > (https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06802.html) > clearly indicated the AI of proposal 7448 as 1. Nobody objected, so the > claim self-ratified and caused p7748's AI to become 1 "at the time the > ratified document was published" according to R1551, which I believe to > be before the application of R106. > Therefore, R016 "saw" a proposal with an AI of 1 and subsequently set > the power of the proposal to 1 before causing it to take effect; so > p7448 had in fact insufficient power to award an patent title. > I judge FALSE and award myself a Blue Ribbon (I'm still 3h20 short of > the deadline!). > > ========================================================================
