Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 10:19:56 pm Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:04, Elliott Hird > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote: > >> I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good > >> gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: "they", "them" > >> etc. (Nor are these some kind of PC invention of the 20th > >> century; they occur used in this way in Shakespeare, the King > >> James bible and Jane Austen. I recommend the discussion on > >> Language Log (online), or the Merriam-Webster Usage Dictionary.) > > > > The First Speaker... speaks! > > > > Now can we get rid of Spivak? > > I second this motion. It worked for B. Strongly tempting, but I still disagree. All politics and grammar aside, Spivak has become a distinctive part of Agoran culture. A lot of geeksquee(*), on my part at least, would be lost by its removal. (*) I just invented this word because I couldn't think of one to mean what I meant: the feeling of inordinate glee you get from an obscure reference, like that one time on Family Guy with the MC Escher rap video. (Extra special points if you get the rather subtle Hofstadter reference in that last comma-delimited clause.) Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:33, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^8. > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^9. Both of these fail. The PNP has insufficient coins for even one withdraw > Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 4 = 8. subsquently fails > The PNP deposits one 8 crop into the PBA to gain ^26. The PNP has an 8 crop still due to a previous botched transaction, but this still fails because the incorrect rate is specified > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^10. > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^11. > Using a Division Mill, the PNP mills 4 / 4 = 1. > The PNP deposits one 1 crop into the PBA to gain ^32. > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^12. > The PNP withdraws one 4 crop from the PBA for ^13. > Using a Multiplication Mill, the PNP mills 4 * 4 = 5. > The PNP deposits one 5 crop into the PBA to gain ^31. As a result all the rest of this fails. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2290 assigned to BobTHJ
BobTHJ wrote: > In consensus with the arguments that have been presented I rule > UNDETERMINED. I thought I had judged a case similar to this in the > past but I can't seem to find it in the archive. 1860, as noted in woggle's gratuituous arguments.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Now can we get rid of Spivak? > I second this motion. It worked for B. "they" is fine for unknown referents, but I'm not going to say "I transfer a prop to ais523 because they did a fine job in their judgement". We could of course revert to standard English and use pronouns appropriate for players' actual genders. But, why?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 16:04, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote: > >> I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good >> gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: "they", "them" etc. (Nor are >> these some kind of PC invention of the 20th century; they occur used in this >> way in Shakespeare, the King James bible and Jane Austen. I recommend the >> discussion on Language Log (online), or the Merriam-Webster Usage >> Dictionary.) > > The First Speaker... speaks! > > Now can we get rid of Spivak? > I second this motion. It worked for B. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
>>> {{{
>>> A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
>>> for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
>>> rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
>>> possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
>>> actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
>>> required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
>>> in finite time.
> As argued by ais523, we do not (perhaps cannot) know whether Wooble is
> governed by a set of rules. Ergo, I would argue, IF e is governed by a set
> of rules, they are clearly not -explicitly- defined anywhere. Unless you're
> into the existence of platonic concepts. And I think those are a bit of a
> silly invention.
Also, not all rule changes to Wooble are theoretically achievable
in finite time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
> > Friendly without objection.".
> >
> > Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
> > phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win by Paradox.
> >
> > A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
> > {{{
> > A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
> > for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
> > rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
> > possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
> > actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
> > required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
> > in finite time.
> > }}}
> > and nomics are defined by nomic rulesets.
Gratuitous Arguments:
Keyword = explicit (fully revealed or expressed without vagueness,
implication, or ambiguity)
As argued by ais523, we do not (perhaps cannot) know whether Wooble is
governed by a set of rules. Ergo, I would argue, IF e is governed by a set
of rules, they are clearly not -explicitly- defined anywhere. Unless you're
into the existence of platonic concepts. And I think those are a bit of a
silly invention.
FALSE
Billy Pilgrim
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:50, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Duly updated. And thanks for the historical note. I believe the next step is "Douglas".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On 26 Nov 2008, at 22:41, Michael Norrish wrote: I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: "they", "them" etc. (Nor are these some kind of PC invention of the 20th century; they occur used in this way in Shakespeare, the King James bible and Jane Austen. I recommend the discussion on Language Log (online), or the Merriam-Webster Usage Dictionary.) The First Speaker... speaks! Now can we get rid of Spivak?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On Nov 26, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Warrigal wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Warrigal of Escher Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship Bach instead. In case you're wondering, by the way, Gödel is the city I was born in. --Warrigal the Liar Duly updated. And thanks for the historical note. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Warrigal of Escher > > Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship > Bach instead. In case you're wondering, by the way, Gödel is the city I was born in. --Warrigal the Liar
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] caste() report
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Warrigal of Escher Drop the Escher; I've undergone a religious conversion and now worship Bach instead. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
Elliott Hird wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 04:46, Pavitra wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote: time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him. Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use pronouns around here. I started playing B much after Agora. I do not like Spivak. I've never used Spivak by choice. English has perfectly good gender-neutral third person singular pronouns: "they", "them" etc. (Nor are these some kind of PC invention of the 20th century; they occur used in this way in Shakespeare, the King James bible and Jane Austen. I recommend the discussion on Language Log (online), or the Merriam-Webster Usage Dictionary.) Michael
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Nov 25, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Siege wrote: I would like to register. Welcome to Agora, Siege! What brought you to this game? And do you go by Siege anywhere else? I know a Siege on a certain message board I frequent. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
comex wrote: > My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I > violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to > register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this > means I intend to initiate the case, then act on behalf of Sgeo and > ehird, in order, to support it, then initiate the case with 2 > support.) I inform you of this case and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt. http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2293
DIS: The trains are running on time again
Okay, home access is back up and running again. Latest batch of judgements are about to be recorded.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 20:55, Jamie Dallaire wrote: Yep. Sorry what I said wasn't super clear. Don't construe that to mean I think everyone here boycotts Windows. Probably some do, but really I meant that it's unlikely to be EVERYONE's main working environment. I only recently semi-weaned off xp, and still have to go back to it once in a while. Certified UNIX here. (OS X :P)
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Remove power-1 scams
Warrigal wrote:
> If a power-1 rule states that a certain person can do something "with
> 0 support" or "without 100 objections", the power-3 rule 1728 allows
> them to do it.
Not if another rule takes precedence over the power-1 rule and says
they can't (or, equivalently, secures the change with a power threshold
greater than 1). In particular, 1728(a) uses "The rules".
> If a power-1 rule says that a person can perform a dependent action
> non-dependently, so does the power-3 rule 1728.
Again, the last paragraph of 1728 uses "the rules".
> If a power-1 rule defines a very long period of time as a Holiday, the
> power-3 rule 1769 messes up timing everywhere.
Rule 1698 would block any holiday longer than three weeks, because it
would extend voting periods and self-ratification beyond the four-week
limit. How this would apply to multiple holidays separated by short
gaps is less clear. (Of course, someone could be a PITA and define
each odd-numbered day of each month as a holiday.)
> If a power-1 rule defines information as being an essential parameter
> for all Agoran decisions, the power-3 rule 107 requires it to be known
> whenever an Agoran decision is initiated.
If it's ambiguous, then R107's "correctly identified" could be
disputed. If it's not reasonably available, then R1698's four-week
limit might apply (we should probably add "reasonable" to that rule).
> Therefore, I submit the following proposal, titled "Remove power-1
> scams", with adoption index 3:
>
> {In rule 1728, "Dependent Actions", replace "A person (the performer)
> CAN perform an action dependently" with "A rule allows a person (the
> performer) to perform an action dependently", "The rules" with "The
> rule", and "A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as
> otherwise permitted by the rules." with "An action being defined as a
> dependent action does not prevent it from being performed
> non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules."
The first part of this looks fine, by loose analogy with the last
paragraph of R1688 (my first draft of this clause used a direct CANNOT).
> In rule 1769, "Holidays", after the sentence "A Holiday is a period of
> time designated as such by the Rules.", add the sentence "Designating
> a period of time as a Holiday is secured."
Or "designated as such by this rule". Or secure it with a power
threshold of 2, and split the last paragraph into another rule. (Past
holidays have included April Fool's Day, Guy Fawkes Day, and possibly
Agora's Birthday.)
> In rule 107, "Initiating Agoran Decisions", after paragraph (e), add
> the paragraph "Defining information as an essential parameter for an
> Agoran decision is secured, with power threshold equal to the power of
> the rule authorizing its initiation."}
Nice referential-ness.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Billy Pilgrim wrote: > > > Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that > > all these nomic players are running xp/vista... > > I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because > it was pre-installed and I dare not risk breaking it). Yep. Sorry what I said wasn't super clear. Don't construe that to mean I think everyone here boycotts Windows. Probably some do, but really I meant that it's unlikely to be EVERYONE's main working environment. I only recently semi-weaned off xp, and still have to go back to it once in a while. BP
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
Billy Pilgrim wrote: > Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that > all these nomic players are running xp/vista... I process e-mail from XP, but my server runs Linux (Red Hat 9, because it was pre-installed and I dare not risk breaking it).
DIS: Advance warning of confusion and delay
My home net access cut out last night, I think due to weather. If it's still out when I leave the office, then I'll be offline until it gets fixed.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > since how my program > interacts with Kerim's program won't have any impact on whether or not > Kerim's program chooses to cooperate with root's, Allow each script to know the name of the author of the other! Would be so much more fun.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
I agree entirely. My initial proposal was to score according to totals, not to win differentials, though I may not have expressed that clearly. i.e. it's better to cooperate and get minorly exploited than to get locked into a cycle of retaliation where hardly anyone gets any points in the entire match, even if you end up being the winner. Bit of a pyrrhic victory in the latter case. In the intial prisoner's dilemma game, the tit-for-tat strategy prevailed. e.g. cooperate whenever the opponent cooperated on the last turn, defect whenever the opponent defected on the last turn. It's pretty much exploitation-proof, and enforces cooperation despite being forgiving enough to oftentimes avoid infinite cycles of recrimination. When the contest was run again, after post mortem analysis, some individuals submitted programs designed specifically to defeat tit-for-tat strategies. For example, one program simply defected in every round. Which means that it beat tit-for-tat programs whose initial move was to cooperate by successfully exploiting these programs for one round, after which games would get locked into score-neutral successive mutual defections. End result: these programs did beat tit-for-tat like programs, and in some cases won the majority of their matches, but in the overall points analysis, they were completely swamped out by other programs who happily cooperated with each other during their own games and racked up huge score totals. That's the kind of thing I envision here, where you can't simply expect to win by narrowly edging out other programs in a zero-sum fashion. Absolute score totals are most important. As for Kerim's $19 to $1 example, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes, $1 is better than nothing, and so a rational decision maker takes the dollar if that's all that's at stake. This occurs, for example, when this is definitely the last interaction between two agents. Which is why I proposed, as Kerim did, that it should be difficult to tell when the round is set to end, exactly. But I don't think Kerim's point about the "larger societal game" applies in this type of tournament, because the only rationale behind not accepting a $1 offer is to force your opponent/partner to offer you more the next time e is the proposer (it being equally true that for the proposer, $15 is better than $0). Unless we start allowing for reputation effects and inspection of results of past games by programs (which I think would add a little too much complexity at least for an initial round), the "larger societal game" aspect doesn't come into it, since how my program interacts with Kerim's program won't have any impact on whether or not Kerim's program chooses to cooperate with root's, e.g. Then again, it could be interesting eventually to set winning conditions such that both absolute and relative scores, i.e. cooperative and cutthroat styles of play, are rewarded THAT would make for quite the interesting mix. BP On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > While we're debating executables for this, I thought I'd raise another > issue: scoring. > > One of the features of "cooperation" experiments is that, rationally, > how well your opponent does shouldn't affect you. For example, if your > opponent offers you $1 and keeps $19, the point of the game is that > rationally you should be happy because $1 is better than none, and > the $19 doesn't matter because in game terms, the total # of dollars > in "the whole game" (real life) is such that your opponent's total > only very, very distantly hurts the value of yours. > > The interesting part of the psychology comes in because people are > willing punish the greedy $19-receivers at a cost to themselves, > showing that they are "evolved" to play the larger societal game of > punishing unfairness before they maximize their dollar. > > For our purposes, that means there's the danger that "traditional > scoring" that would turn this experiment into a different kind > of game, more cutthroat and zero-sum, especially if each round is > scored based on differences. Example, take outcomes for three > players, Greedy, Friendly, and Dupe: > > Results: > Greedy vs. Dupe : 11 (Greedy), 1 (Dupe) Diff: +10 Greedy > Friendly vs. Dupe : 100 (Friendly), 98 (Dupe) Diff: +2 Friendly > Greedy vs. Friendly : 50 (Greedy), 50 (Friendly) Diff: 0 > > Ranked by per-game win average (suggested in contest proto I think): > Greedy5 > Friendly 1 > Dupe -4 > > Ranked by total: > Friendly 150 > Dupe 99 > Greedy 61 > > So the first method awards cutthroat play rather than cooperation (keep > totals down as long as per-game difference is high) while second awards > "cooperation", where Dupe, who didn't win any game directly, does > better than Greedy. Of course since the game domain ultimately is small, > even the cooperative players have to assume some level of zero-sum-ness: > in the second method, the best pla
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source > >> submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the > >> source to a discreet contestmaster. > > > > Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his > > favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, > > and binaries can be disassembled anyway. > > Thirded. 75% of the fun is looking at algorithms that turned out to be > cleverer than mine. Indeed. Of course it's important that sources not be revealed while others are still scripting. But the interest behind this contest, in the end, is mainly in the post mortem. What worked and why? If we want a second round we can build on that, just like Axelrod and company did. BP
DIS: Infractions, Contract reforms
ais523 or others: Can you point me to latest drafts of infraction reforms and also your contract reforms (hierarchy of types of enforceable contracts IIRC)? Happy to take a round as a coauthor for next drafts but I wasn't following earlier discussions fully... -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source >> submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the >> source to a discreet contestmaster. > > Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his > favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, > and binaries can be disassembled anyway. Thirded. 75% of the fun is looking at algorithms that turned out to be cleverer than mine.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source > submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the > source to a discreet contestmaster. Concur. A dishonest contestmaster could just announce that his favorite program won. No reason not to give an honest one the source, and binaries can be disassembled anyway.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
While we're debating executables for this, I thought I'd raise another issue: scoring. One of the features of "cooperation" experiments is that, rationally, how well your opponent does shouldn't affect you. For example, if your opponent offers you $1 and keeps $19, the point of the game is that rationally you should be happy because $1 is better than none, and the $19 doesn't matter because in game terms, the total # of dollars in "the whole game" (real life) is such that your opponent's total only very, very distantly hurts the value of yours. The interesting part of the psychology comes in because people are willing punish the greedy $19-receivers at a cost to themselves, showing that they are "evolved" to play the larger societal game of punishing unfairness before they maximize their dollar. For our purposes, that means there's the danger that "traditional scoring" that would turn this experiment into a different kind of game, more cutthroat and zero-sum, especially if each round is scored based on differences. Example, take outcomes for three players, Greedy, Friendly, and Dupe: Results: Greedy vs. Dupe : 11 (Greedy), 1 (Dupe) Diff: +10 Greedy Friendly vs. Dupe : 100 (Friendly), 98 (Dupe) Diff: +2 Friendly Greedy vs. Friendly : 50 (Greedy), 50 (Friendly) Diff: 0 Ranked by per-game win average (suggested in contest proto I think): Greedy5 Friendly 1 Dupe -4 Ranked by total: Friendly 150 Dupe 99 Greedy 61 So the first method awards cutthroat play rather than cooperation (keep totals down as long as per-game difference is high) while second awards "cooperation", where Dupe, who didn't win any game directly, does better than Greedy. Of course since the game domain ultimately is small, even the cooperative players have to assume some level of zero-sum-ness: in the second method, the best play is probably "cooperate until the 'last minute' then do a quick betrayal for the game-winning point". (This latter strategy can be defused somewhat by making the # of rounds in one match random within a range so that there's no certain last round). [Side note: we actually experimented in this in a contest I ran a few years ago for players directly: a common pool resource game where you tried to harvest fish---maximize your own catch against others while leaving enough to grow into the next round. Quickly learned that uncertainty about when the "last round" was is v. important. Incidentally, at the time I was wondering if people would form private contracts to protect the resource: they didn't in part because contract law was much less developed, maybe a partner of AAA should extend into fishing?] Just something to think about as it's very relevant to think about ahead of time, as it affects the types of strategies that end up being the best. Thoughts? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:15, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. >> I could be wrong however. > > Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage > the contest, if I understand it. I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. (One could avoid that, of course, by posting something like a hash of one's source in round 1, then posting the source in round 2, but it would probably be good to allow people to bug-fix their source, etc. if problems arise without it being suspicious.) And, well, revealing binaries in advance might damage the contest about as much if poeple decide to use them. -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:15, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. >> I could be wrong however. > > Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage > the contest, if I understand it. > Speaking with no first-hand experience: .NET code is compiled into bytecode and run on a virtual machine (similar to Java), so I suspect you could in fact run a .NET executable on a linux machine. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote: > >> So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program >> written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that >> could be run anywhere? > > llvm, java, etc... > > Pick yer poison. Not sure all languages are portable on executable level. My preferred would be ANSI-standard C, portable on source-level to any machine with gcc. If there's some gcc-compatible tools to make actual executables, say, that transfer between linux and windows, I've not researched them- any (free) ideas? With executable transfer I've even had problems between gcc compiles on two windows machines due to cygwin library version issues--- I always just compile from source on each machine. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage > the contest, if I understand it. Presumably everyone using a scripting language would reveal the source to the contestmaster anyway.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:31, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> I can in my preferred language of choice. > > VB.Net, right? Does "everywhere" include "non-Windows systems"? > I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I can in my preferred language of choice. > VB.Net, right? Does "everywhere" include "non-Windows systems"? mono
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: > > I can in my preferred language of choice. >> > > VB.Net, right? Does "everywhere" include "non-Windows systems"? Heh it definitely should. I'm on linux here and just can't imagine that all these nomic players are running xp/vista...
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does "everywhere" include "non-Windows systems"?
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:26, Jamie Dallaire wrote: So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? llvm, java, etc... Pick yer poison.
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:26, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program > written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that > could be run anywhere? > I can in my preferred language of choice. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think these are big enough cons, you really want round-robin multiple > rounds. I don't think you have to worry too much about assembly, etc., > you're probably offering enough diversity if you offer a small range of > standard programming languages. It might be better to just get this > off the ground by "adding languages by request where possible", you > shouldn't end up with too many? I think that works, thanks! I'll look into establishing a general framework in the next few days, though converting that into a workable program will have to wait a bit. So, I was wrong in my assumption, then, that you could compile a program written in essentially any language into some sort of executable file that could be run anywhere? BP
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2287 assigned to comex
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 2008, at 15:43, comex wrote: >> Which is correct is up to ais523 > > surely it'd be up to the notary? > > CFJ: The Vote Market exists ais523 is the judge of CFJ 2288, a recent case of yours, identical to the one you just called. :o
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I started playing B much after Agora. > > I do not like Spivak. Funny, I started playing B much before Agora. When it used Spivak.
DIS: Re: BUS: Z
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Zotting a CFJ" means "intending to appeal a CFJ, acting on behalf > of every party to the Z house to support, and appealing it". FWIW, I won't join because of this bit. Criminal cases may be underused, but appeal cases are overused..
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context, > please? That was all of the context, and I was incorrect. The contestmaster switch is tracked by the Notary, but the list of contestmasters is part of the Scorekeepor's report and thus can be ratified as part of the scope of either report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 05:39, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > bobthj scammed it as a contest by ratifying scorekeepor's report. Except... > see wooble's quote. > > Arguments: The PRS was a contest for quite some time before it ceased to be one due to a ratification error on the Notary report. When errors in ratification are noticed, a logical method to fix them is to re-ratify the corrected informationwhich is precisely what I did. BobTHJ
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PRS
Elysion wrote: > Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the > context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I > just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.) It was decontestified by mistake when a Notary's Report listing it as not a contest was ratified, and contestified by deliberate 'mistake' when a Scorekeepor's Report listing it as a contest was ratified, allegedly. The CFJ is about whether the second of these ratifications worked, given that the Scorekeepor is not the recordkeepor of contestmaster. -- ais523 <>
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
Murphy wrote: > Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings > up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to > delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to > submit it as a proposal.) Sorry, I've been busy recently. Someone else feel free to submit it, or I'll do it myself once I have time to go over it and correct for any glaring mistakes. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On 26 Nov 2008, at 12:12, Joshua Boehme wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 + Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CFJ: The PRS is a contest Arguments: neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a contest. and since the Scorekeepor report hasn't been published regularly, point holdings haven't been ratified recently. although the scorekeepor's report does officially contain the contestmasters too. wtf? Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.) -- Elysion bobthj scammed it as a contest by ratifying scorekeepor's report. Except... see wooble's quote.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On 26 Nov 2008, at 04:46, Pavitra wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote: time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him. Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use pronouns around here. I started playing B much after Agora. I do not like Spivak.
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:59:44 + Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ: The PRS is a contest > > Arguments: > > neat, PRS isn't a contest; Notary is recordkeepor of > contestmasters so ratifying the Scorekeepor report didn't make it a > contest. > and since the Scorekeepor report hasn't been published > regularly, point holdings haven't been ratified recently. > although the scorekeepor's report does officially contain > the contestmasters too. wtf? > Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.) -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to >>> know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of >>> course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want >>> (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so >>> things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the >>> closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically >>> interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . >>> >> Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? > > Cons: Making sure all programs are available at the same time. People > going against the spirit of the game could use manual intervention to > change strategy (timeouts can disincentivize this). Harder to run a > whole lot of rounds (which would give a clearer idea of winner). I think these are big enough cons, you really want round-robin multiple rounds. I don't think you have to worry too much about assembly, etc., you're probably offering enough diversity if you offer a small range of standard programming languages. It might be better to just get this off the ground by "adding languages by request where possible", you shouldn't end up with too many? -Goethe
