DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 21:49, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: Reflects actions up to and including Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:50 Agoran Agricultural Association CoE: This whole report is inaccurate as it purports actions that were never performed. Care to explain? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 08:29 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Care to explain? BobTHJ I explained with my last CoE but I just realized I only CoEd my holdings, not everyone. You recorded events as if the mere act of harvesting or buying a ranch causes the appropriate adjustments to be made to holdings; it does not. You owe a large number of people a large number of crops, WRV, lands, and points. Actually, this is probably true of the Scorekeepor report as well. I CoE that for the same reason. WRV are platonic (although the others aren't). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:29, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Care to explain? BobTHJ I explained with my last CoE but I just realized I only CoEd my holdings, not everyone. You recorded events as if the mere act of harvesting or buying a ranch causes the appropriate adjustments to be made to holdings; it does not. You owe a large number of people a large number of crops, WRV, lands, and points. Actually, this is probably true of the Scorekeepor report as well. I CoE that for the same reason. If you're not convinced I'm handling this right take a look at your latest harvestings of proposals for points. The AAA report shows your crops being deducted for the harvesting, but the Scorekeepor report does not yet show you receiving the points. You'll get those in my next automated actions e-mail when they are awarded to you by the SoA. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Next time, read the contract before alleging someone misread it. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 29, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: If you're not convinced I'm handling this right take a look at your latest harvestings of proposals for points. The AAA report shows your crops being deducted for the harvesting, but the Scorekeepor report does not yet show you receiving the points. You'll get those in my next automated actions e-mail when they are awarded to you by the SoA. BobTHJ My apologies; I did not realize that WRV harvesting was platonic rather than pragmatic. I transfer 2 WRVs to ais523 (I still owe you 4, I believe). -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:13, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. -coppro I mill 9 - 7 = 2, 9 - 7 = 2, 8 + 3 = 0, 9 * 8 = 6. I purchase a Mill. I harvest 6543, 6544, 6545, 6546, and 6547 for points. NOTE: At the time you harvested these 6543, 6544, and 6547 are Democratic, so this will net you 8 y-points and 24 x-points. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:13, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. -coppro I mill 9 - 7 = 2, 9 - 7 = 2, 8 + 3 = 0, 9 * 8 = 6. I purchase a Mill. I harvest 6543, 6544, 6545, 6546, and 6547 for points. NOTE: At the time you harvested these 6543, 6544, and 6547 are Democratic, so this will net you 8 y-points and 24 x-points. BobTHJ 6546 didn't exist, either. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify? BobTHJ You show that I have acquired all the WRV I harvested for, but you never performed the actual harvesting actions. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 14:02, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify? BobTHJ You show that I have acquired all the WRV I harvested for, but you never performed the actual harvesting actions. CFJ harvesting was changed a while back because it had a fixed result: b. Within one week after an ID number is assigned to a CFJ, a Farmer CAN once Harvest the ID number of that CFJ. Upon doing so, two Water Rights Vouchers are created in that Farmer's possession BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:01 +0100, ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 16:49 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: CROP WRV HOLDINGS Farmer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV - ais523 11 18 2 49 56 19 11 62 32 48 17 36 Taral 17 6 4 48 22 62 3 63 38 51 45 12 @Taral: what would you offer me for some of your 2s? Err, I mean @Taral: what would you want from me for some of your 2s? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1 CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended to deposit eir WRV into. Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the only active bank. Other opinions? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Roger Hicks wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1 CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended to deposit eir WRV into. Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the only active bank. Other opinions? BobTHJ I will point out that I believed at the time that I was not a member of the PBA; it is possible I really wasn't and the Notary issued an erroneous report (which may not remove the ambiguity of the deposit). -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Roger Hicks wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: IBA � � � � � � � � 3 � 2 � 0 � 0 � 1 � 1 � 9 � 1 � 1 � 8 � 9 � 1 CoE: The IBA has no WRV. �coppro did not specify which bank e intended to deposit eir WRV into. Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the only active bank. Other opinions? Proto-precedent: ambiguity should be judged on the ability of the poster to later plausibly choose an interpretation. That is, if someone says I deposit 1 WRV in the bank, and can then later choose the bank that later turns out to have been the more economically advantageous bank to have deposited in, then this should be treated as ineffective due to ambiguity; but if only one interpretation can be made plausible in retrospect, then the announcement should be treated as unambiguous and effective. Not saying that's what's going on here, but I'd like to set the policy before it gets abused.
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 00:04, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: IBA 3 2 0 0 1 1 9 1 1 8 9 1 CoE: The IBA has no WRV. coppro did not specify which bank e intended to deposit eir WRV into. Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the only active bank. Other opinions? Bank transactions are difficult in this regard (we ran into this problem to some extent during the hey-days of the RBOA and PBA). They use an action mechanism defined in the Bank's contract, but transfer an asset defined in a different contract (or the rules). So, who has the final say as to the success state of a transaction? The recordkeepor of the bank (since the action in question is defined there)? or the recordkeepor of the asset (since their report of holdings is what is ratified)? In my opinion it should be the latter, but it does seem to be a tough call. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 00:04, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote: Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the only active bank. Other opinions? Bank transactions are difficult in this regard (we ran into this problem to some extent during the hey-days of the RBOA and PBA). They use an action mechanism defined in the Bank's contract, but transfer an asset defined in a different contract (or the rules). So, who has the final say as to the success state of a transaction? The recordkeepor of the bank (since the action in question is defined there)? or the recordkeepor of the asset (since their report of holdings is what is ratified)? In my opinion it should be the latter, but it does seem to be a tough call. If the asset's backing document says an asset action CAN happen, it CAN happen (subject to rules restrictions above that). The bank can neither add a CAN nor impose a CANNOT, unless the backing document explicitly delegates such powers to the bank. The bank can impose SHALL and SHALL NOTs, and can also create a subclass of CANS by creating act-on-behalfs between members. I think! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Roger Hicks wrote: Agoran Agricultural Association In the future, could you please post the report after the actions? Makes it easier on us. Also, you are the Scorekeepor. How come you can't ensure your revocations of points succeed? This is an equitable contract; taking reparative action if necessary is fine. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 15:09, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: Agoran Agricultural Association In the future, could you please post the report after the actions? Makes it easier on us. Yes sorry. I forgot I had actions to process until after I had sent the report. The current state of the AAA can be found at http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx?contract=AAA. Also, you are the Scorekeepor. How come you can't ensure your revocations of points succeed? This is an equitable contract; taking reparative action if necessary is fine. I wrote this portion of the code last year when I first used this system. I have plans to update it in the near future to make it pragmatic. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: I harvest 2259 and 1 to turn a 2 ranch into a 1 ranch. O.o -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
Roger Hicks wrote: coppro 6 5 8 5 1 4 3 9 5 17 3 1 I mill 0 - 7 = 4. I mill 9 - 3 = 6. I mill 7 * 4 = 6. I harvest 2643 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2637 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2639 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2638 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 955 for 8 random crops. I harvest 683 for 8 random crops. I harvest 2196 for 8 random crops.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
coppro wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: coppro 6 5 8 5 1 4 3 9 5 17 3 1 I mill 0 - 7 = 4. I mill 9 - 3 = 6. I mill 7 * 4 = 6. I harvest 2643 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2637 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2639 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 2638 for 2 WRVs. I harvest 955 for 8 random crops. I harvest 683 for 8 random crops. I harvest 2196 for 8 random crops. NttPF
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:03 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote: CROP WRV HOLDINGS Farmer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV - AFO53 35 1 0 3 0 3 40 11 26 1 0 ais523 3 7 7 5 7 6 9 4 14 9 16 8 AFO, I'm willing to trade you up to four X crops at a price of four 0 crops each. Probably we'd both end up benefiting from that. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 22:18, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Warrigal8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I have too many crops. I PBA-deposit a 0 crop. Warrigal0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 And I have a mill I ought to put to use. I PBA-withdraw a 4 crop, mill 3 - 4 = X, and PBA-deposit an X crop. ATTN ehird: It looks like the 4 crop withdraw fails (not enough coins), which means that the later X crop deposit also fails for a lack of X crops. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 22:13, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 0 - 9 = 2 using Land #48. I mill 8 / 4 = 2 using Land #68. I harvest 2235, a newly created CFJ number. I harvest 2237, a newly created CFJ number. I harvest 2238, a newly created CFJ number. That should give me enough WRVs for a while. And in case I need it: I mill 4 / 8 = 6 using Land #68. This last milling fails (you already used your division mill previously in this message). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Oct 29, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 22:13, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 0 - 9 = 2 using Land #48. I mill 8 / 4 = 2 using Land #68. And in case I need it: I mill 4 / 8 = 6 using Land #68. This last milling fails (you already used your division mill previously in this message). Apparantly I ran out of toes. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 22:02, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 05 October 2008 09:56:31 pm Roger Hicks wrote: FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra10 9 816 9 13 2 Since then, I've harvested using 2 of these 1 crops. I deposit the rest of these crops. Chit calculations follow. Sorry, somehow I missed this message. (already had) 17 (1) 8 * 70 = 560 (3) 9 * 70 = 630 (5) 8 * 70 = 560 (7) 16 * 68 = 1088 (8) 9 * 90 = 810 (9) 13 * 90 = 1170 -- I now have4835 chits. 5 crops have a rate of 77, and 8 crops have a rate of 70, so you gain a total of 4694 chits from this transaction BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote: I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange rates: 8 crops55 Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8 Crops; having two 8 Ranches, I've been generating them fast enough that they're one of the first things that I exchange. If you lower the rate too far my incentive to sell my 8 Crops will reduce. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Monday 13 October 2008 01:44:46 pm ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:36 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote: I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange rates: 8 crops55 Note that it's mostly me who's responsible for the bank's glut of 8 Crops; having two 8 Ranches, I've been generating them fast enough that they're one of the first things that I exchange. If you lower the rate too far my incentive to sell my 8 Crops will reduce. That's kind of part of the point; if 8 Crops are being deposited more than they're being withdrawn, then we're above fair market price. Ideally there should be neither glut nor drought. Note also that most of the rates are being dropped, so that 55 chits will be more expensive/valuable than 55 chits is now. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, without 3 Objections, to set each of the following exchange rates: 6 crops 85 X crops 200 (each pitch of Credits) 70 Point Vchrs 50 [It's generally A Good Thing for rates to be high enough that people will deposit. The flow of commerce benefits depositors, withdrawors, and the Bank itself.] It also raises the withdrawal rates, which makes it less attractive to deposit the currencies that didn't get raised. I've actually been thinking about lowering rates overall, which would benefit existing chit-holders by increasing their buying power; additionally, if we establish a record of lowering rates, then depositing might start to look attractive as a longer term investment. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It also raises the withdrawal rates, which makes it less attractive to deposit the currencies that didn't get raised. I've actually been thinking about lowering rates overall, which would benefit existing chit-holders by increasing their buying power; additionally, if we establish a record of lowering rates, then depositing might start to look attractive as a longer term investment. Of course, we could also just start paying interest. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... flaming bobba smurf. All right. Let's see what I've got here. FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1 -5 -7-11 7 1 1 5 6 72 I harvest the numbers of proposals 5710 and 5730. Pavitra Fails. You have no 0 crops (unless I'm missing something?) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... flaming bobba smurf. All right. Let's see what I've got here. FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1 -5 -7-11 7 1 1 5 6 72 I harvest the numbers of proposals 5710 and 5730. Pavitra Fails. You have no 0 crops (unless I'm missing something?) I think the message was supposed to indicate that Pavitra deposits 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops, then withdraws 7 0 crops, and 1 4 crop. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Friday 03 October 2008 02:24:08 pm Charles Reiss wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... flaming bobba smurf. All right. Let's see what I've got here. FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1 -5 -7-11 7 1 1 5 6 72 I harvest the numbers of proposals 5710 and 5730. Pavitra Fails. You have no 0 crops (unless I'm missing something?) I think the message was supposed to indicate that Pavitra deposits 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops, then withdraws 7 0 crops, and 1 4 crop. No, I forgot that my RBoA transactions were inside the don't do this wrapper, so I thought I had those crops unspent. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 00:02, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 54 chits.
If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole,
then I take none of them.
{
I deposit 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops
for 311 chits. This brings me to a total of 365 chits.
This nets you 2590 chits, not 311 chits. By itself I wouldn't consider
this a failure of the transaction.
I withdraw 7 0 crops and 1 4 crop for 355 chits. (It may cost less
than this, but I think it's 355. If I have enough chits to withdraw
the specified crops, I do so and consider the transaction
successful.)
I harvest the numbers of proposals 5700, 5701, 5703, 5704, 5705 if it
exists, and 5707.
You only have four 7 crops remaining after your deposit so the last
two of these would fail...as a result I am considering the entire
transaction a failure.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction failing. And in fact it does fail because of how it's disclaimered. So in B this leads to a contradiction either way. Why would B resolve it differently? You can't disclaimer actions out of existence in B. Transactions are special-cased by the ruleset. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
ais523 wrote: On Sat, 2008-09-27 at 18:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction failing. And in fact it does fail because of how it's disclaimered. So in B this leads to a contradiction either way. Why would B resolve it differently? You can't disclaimer actions out of existence in B. Transactions are special-cased by the ruleset. I remember that, but doesn't the transaction rule work the same way? Rule 4E12: Transactions As a Game Action, an Outsider can submit a Transaction. A Transaction consists of: * A clear statement marking the Start of the Transaction, such as BEGIN TRANSACTION. * A body of text, which may or may not contain Game Actions and assertions about the state of the game. * A clear statement marking the End of the Transaction, such as END TRANSACTION. The list is considered in sequence. If every sentence between the start and end of the Transaction constitutes either, a Game Action that would be legal for the Outsider to take exactly as specified, or an assertion that would be true at the time it occurs within the list if the Game Actions were so taken, then the Transaction is said to Succeed. Otherwise, the Transaction is said to Fail. If it cannot be determined with finality and certainty whether or not one of a Transaction's assertions is true, or whether one of its Game Actions is legal, then the Transaction Fails. The Game Actions in a Transaction that Succeeds occur just as though the Outsider had taken them individually. A Transaction that Fails has no effect. The verb to repeal means to give the Repealed Property to.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:29 -0500, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. I do 1.
2. I do 2.
3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1.
It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The
simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also
kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best.
I believe the way I structured my message avoids that
retroactive-cancellation problem.
I do apologize for the finicky conditional, but I really don't want to
make a major transaction like that and end up losing most of my crops
for no benefit.
One of B Nomic's major rules is that it allows Transactions which act
pretty much exactly as Pavitra attempted. I went and did a trivial
paradox scam using them in B (which everyone ignored, due to wins having
been repealed), and I can try something very similar here in Agora
(which I don't expect to win, but may as well see what happens):
I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
block of text would be true at the time it was made:
{{{
I call for judgement on the statement Goethe is wearing a hat.
The previous action either failed or was never made because either this
block of text contained an action which would not be successful, or it
contained a statement that would not be true.
}}}
(This is about as close as I can get to the paradox I created in B, but
using Agoran terminology; I've translated it more or less literally,
thus causing the extra complexity).
I'm interpreting this as failing due to ambiguity of intent.
Again, let P = I perform all the actions...
X = I call for judgement...
Y = The previous action...
P simply asks will X and Y both work?, so X and Y are evaluated with
awareness of P, so (P fails, X fails, Y is true) is self-consistent.
B's Transactions rule would ask would X and Y both work individually?,
so X and Y would be hypothetically evaluated without awareness of P, so
X would hypothetically succeed and Y would hypothetically lack a truth
value (it would collapse to Y is false), so P would still fail.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 16:47 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
I perform all the actions in the following block of text, if and only if
they would all be successful, and every non-action statement in that
block of text would be true at the time it was made:
{{{
I call for judgement on the statement Goethe is wearing a hat.
The previous action either failed or was never made because either this
block of text contained an action which would not be successful, or it
contained a statement that would not be true.
}}}
(This is about as close as I can get to the paradox I created in B, but
using Agoran terminology; I've translated it more or less literally,
thus causing the extra complexity).
This doesn't seem all that complex:
Let P be the action I perform all the actions...
Let X be the action I call for judgement...
Let Y be the statement The previous action...
If Y is false, then P isn't performed.
If Y is true, then either Y is false (contradiction) or X isn't
performed (in which case P isn't performed).
Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I
haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to
call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction
failing. So in B this leads to a contradiction either way. And Y can't
be false, because in order for X to be performed, P must be true and
therefore Y must be true.
In either case, P isn't performed.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is, assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not straightforward, the officer should reject it and say why. This seems an extremely reasonable policy. H. SoA BobTHJ, did it work? Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 25 September 2008 04:37:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is, assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not straightforward, the officer should reject it and say why. This seems an extremely reasonable policy. H. SoA BobTHJ, did it work? Pavitra Uh...I haven't checked yet, although it seemed reasonable to figure out. On another note, I really don't have time to keep up with the AAA right now. Isn't there someone (anyone?) who would be willing to take it over for now? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
ais523 wrote: Ah, this might be where it breaks down in Agora. The point is that as I haven't reached my CFJ limit yet, there's no way that the attempt to call a CFJ can fail, except for some other part of the transaction failing. And in fact it does fail because of how it's disclaimered. So in B this leads to a contradiction either way. Why would B resolve it differently? And Y can't be false, because in order for X to be performed, P must be true and therefore Y must be true. And in fact it does work out that way. Compare a scam attempted several years back, along the lines of Proposal: Upon the adoption of this proposal, Rule 101 is not amended to read author CAN amend any rule by announcement.. which pointed out that not applying a proposal's changes is not the same as applying the opposite of a proposal's changes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On another note, I really don't have time to keep up with the AAA right now. Isn't there someone (anyone?) who would be willing to take it over for now? FRC is less work. Want to trade contests? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole, then I take none of them. I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:47, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole, then I take none of them. I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this? Ignoring the issue of checking that the proposals existing and determining their democraticness, there's only one recordkeepor (since BobTHJ recordkeeps for both the AAA and the RBoA), so it'd be somewhat less special effort. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Taral wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole, then I take none of them. I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this? Except for voting, conditional actions are wholly a courtesy and (longstanding) game custom, aren't they? Disclaimers were recently the subject of (controversial) CFJs, and we haven't really settled the case on how they interfere with timing. For example, in the sequence in a message: 1. I do 1. 2. I do 2. 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1. It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best. In other words, the whole thing is built on conflicting and controversial CFJs, and we probably need a legislative fix. Unreasonably difficult conditionals don't work (see first paragraphs of Maud's judgement in CFJ 1460) but I'm not sure if it's the unreasonable issue or the timing issue that's most important here. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: 1. I do 1. 2. I do 2. 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1. It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best. I believe the way I structured my message avoids that retroactive-cancellation problem. I do apologize for the finicky conditional, but I really don't want to make a major transaction like that and end up losing most of my crops for no benefit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: On Thursday 25 September 2008 01:03:46 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: 1. I do 1. 2. I do 2. 3. If 2 failed, I didn't do 1. It's very arguable if #3 actually, legally works. The simultaneous but sequential is no longer in the rules but is also kept by (recent) CFJ and a controversial series of them at best. I believe the way I structured my message avoids that retroactive-cancellation problem. I do apologize for the finicky conditional, but I really don't want to make a major transaction like that and end up losing most of my crops for no benefit. Overall I think it's up to the officer (or contestmaster) recording the transactions to decide if it's straightforward and if it is, assume the conditional works as intended and if it's not straightforward, the officer should reject it and say why. Kind of like I do X Y times works if it's reasonable, but not if Y is infinite or paradoxical or ridiculous or beyond a reasonable effort to figure out. (For this one, I didn't look at your statement but was just replying to Taral's question on legality). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:11 - SoA creates six WRV in Taral's possession How come I have 7 WRV then? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:11 - SoA creates six WRV in Taral's possession How come I have 7 WRV then? Because you already had one before you gained those six? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because you already had one before you gained those six? *facepalm* I read that as destroys. :) -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT When a game is going well for so long, is there a case for integrating into the rules; by that I mean allow profits here to be more officially converted to properties other than points. Also allow the contestmaster to be an Officer with transition rules etc. If the free market is doing just fine though, no need to meddle... -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 5/8=2 and 5*5=3. I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV. I create two WRV in Pavitra's possession. Why? 2137 wasn't eligible. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Pavitra wrote: I mill 5/8=2 and 5*5=3. I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV. I transfer all my mills to the PNP. I request subsidy. You might have to wait until next week, per para 16b of the AAA: Once each week, a first-class farmer who at the beginning of that week owned fewer lands than the Federal Subsidy may 'request subsidization' by announcement. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV. This fails. CFJ 2137 was assigned its number ages ago. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: I think the subsidy is now at 9. I request subsidization. I create a Mill (land #123) with an Operator of * (Multiplication) and a WRV in the possession of OscarMeyr 3 multiplication mills. That doesn't help too much. Anybody want to swap? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out than division. Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once you get your mind around the whole wrapping of negative values thing. Still, a chart to glance at and say ok, I have these crops and these mills, what can I make? would be nice. Of course, something like Murphy's spendable chords thing would be even nicer. Maybe I'll work on that when I'm done with the web-based color Tailor's report I'm working on. (Of course, getting a web browser to display ultraviolet to really get the report to be accurate could take years)
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50 Time of this report: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:31 Maximum Points Awardable: 60 Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidy. I create a Digit Ranch (land #122) with a Seed of 4 and a WRV in the possesion of woggle. Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
woggle wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50 Time of this report: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:31 Maximum Points Awardable: 60 Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidy. I create a Digit Ranch (land #122) with a Seed of 4 and a WRV in the possesion of woggle. Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. http://xkcd.com/221/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. -woggle At the rate CFJs are being called lately I think 4s will be in high demand before too longjust wait for another 2k CFJs to be called. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I mill 5 * 8, does that produce 7? Yes. BTW, It would probably be nice to have addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables in the AAA report too; it's not like they're significantly less obnoxious to figure out than division.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 10:12 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: Federal Subsidy: 7 I request subsidisation. Fails. You must own less than 7 lands at the beginning of the week to request subsidy. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: I still think it's more complexity than is necessary. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks These may stack, i.e., an upgraded Digit Ranch actually produces 3 crops per week (1 for being a Digit Ranch, and 2 for being upgraded), and a downgraded Digit Ranch produces a total of 3 crops every 2 weeks. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote: (upgrading and downgrading lands) Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a land? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr Goodness, never thought of that. Any input?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Quazie wrote: Will the consecutive integers wrap around? May I harvest 89X0 to upgrade a land? Goodness, never thought of that. Any input? No, but you should be able to harvest 89X1, with X as a wildcard for 0. This would be in keeping with the role of X generally...
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
I have many many mills, and i would like another digit ranch, specifically a 2 digit ranch. I could also take a 0 ranch. If someone wants to make a trade of one of my mills for one of the ranches I want, let me know.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract: g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-upgraded, land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become an upgraded version of that land. Upgraded lands shall be denoted with (u). Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week Add the following to the end of Section 9: An upgraded Mill does not go in to production the first time it is used during a week. If it is used twice within the same week, it then goes into production --- Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following to the end of the 6th section of the AAA contract, lettering it as appropriate A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers, in reverse order (e.g. 4321) and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-downgraded land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become a downgraded version of that land. Downgraded lands shall be denoted with a (d). Add the following to the end of section 8: A downgraded Digit Ranch produces 1 crop every 2 weeks Add the following to the end of Section 9: A downgraded mill stays in production for twice as long --- Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: Add a new numbered paragraph that reads as follows: Upgrading a normal land makes it an upgraded land. Upgrading a downgraded land makes it a normal land. Downgrading a normal land makes it a downgraded land. Downgrading an upgraded land makes it a normal land.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Monday 7 July 2008 5:32:23 Quazie wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1 WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though. The thought was that a negative counter part could exist for each where either the land/mill doesn't work half the time, or with the spending of a crop by any other player the action wouldn't work (to reduce randomness on BobTHJ) Maybe downgraded mills could remain In Production for twice as long. Likewise, downgraded ranches could only produce crops every other harvest. And I don't like the idea of upgraded Ranches needing double WRVs. That just makes an upgraded 4 ranch (say) the slightly less-fungible equivalent of 2 regular 4 ranches -- not actually an advantage at all. Maybe downgraded lands produce normally, but require two WRV per month. Pavitra
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract: g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-upgraded, land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become an upgraded version of that land. Upgraded lands shall be denoted with a ^. Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week Add the following to the end of Section 9: An upgraded mill produces 2 crops of the specified type per milling --- I also was thinking about having a downgraded version of mills/digit ranches but I can't seem to find a good version of those.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: I proto-object. It's too powerful. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote: Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract: g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-upgraded, land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become an upgraded version of that land. Upgraded lands shall be denoted with a ^. Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week Add the following to the end of Section 9: An upgraded mill produces 2 crops of the specified type per milling An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1 WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote: Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows: --- Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract: g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall select a random, non-upgraded, land owned by the specified Farmer. This land shall become an upgraded version of that land. Upgraded lands shall be denoted with a ^. Add the following to the end of section 8: An upgraded Digit Ranch produces 2 crops a week Add the following to the end of Section 9: An upgraded mill produces 2 crops of the specified type per milling An upgraded Ranch should require 2 WRVs / month (possibly distributed as 1 WRV every half month). I think the upgraded Mill is too powerful, though. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr The thought was that a negative counter part could exist for each where either the land/mill doesn't work half the time, or with the spending of a crop by any other player the action wouldn't work (to reduce randomness on BobTHJ)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That depends on the value of 4. Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That depends on the value of 4. Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0? NaN. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0? NaN. NaN is incomparable with zero. I didn't say not (4 - 4 = 0), I said 4 - 4 != 0. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
NaN.
NaN is incomparable with zero. I didn't say not (4 - 4 = 0), I said 4 - 4 !=
0.
four = float('nan')
four - four != 0
True
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
four = float('nan')
four - four != 0
True
What do you get for four == four?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
four = float('nan')
four - four != 0
True
What do you get for four == four?
False, of course.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you get for four == four? Oh, nevermind. That's a different - than the one we were talking about before. You successfully sidetracked me. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That depends on the value of 4. Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0? 0/0, or infinity. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That depends on the value of 4. Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0? 0/0, or infinity. -G. One might also imagine an esoteric programming language in which accessing a variable inherently changes its value. I call dibs, and I'm naming it Heisenberg. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends on the value of 4.
Please give a value of 4 for which 4 - 4 != 0?
0/0, or infinity. -G.
One might also imagine an esoteric programming language in which
accessing a variable inherently changes its value.
Well if you want to go that route: (perl obviously) package F;use base
Tie::Scalar;sub TIESCALAR{bless[]} sub FETCH{++$i}tie $x, F; print
$x for 1..10;
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One might also imagine an esoteric programming language in which
accessing a variable inherently changes its value.
Well if you want to go that route: (perl obviously) package F;use base
Tie::Scalar;sub TIESCALAR{bless[]} sub FETCH{++$i}tie $x, F; print
$x for 1..10;
Well sure, and any language that supports properties lets you do the
same thing as well, but I was thinking more of something along the
lines of Java2K.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 0/0, or infinity. -G. Neither of which are defined. It's a bit like root's NaN. If you extend the domain of - to values that don't behave, you can get x - x != 0. But then you're talking about a different -. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic. Oops... But not in binary :) If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something horribly wrong. Obviously in binary, 4 is an arbitrary symbol like X, so 4 - 4 is 0, even in binary. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 12:53 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidisation. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
2008/7/3 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 4 + 8 = 2. I mill 4 - 4 = 0. Isn't 4+8=1 mod 11? Oh, someone already caught that. This is what I get for looking at mistakes and not seeing if there's any DIS thread about them..
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 4 + 8 = 2. Fails. This would yield a 1 crop. I mill 4 - 4 = 0. And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic). I harvest 2054, the number of a recently called CFJ, for 2 WRVs. Fails due to the above. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 4 - 4 = 0. And this would yield an X crop (don't forgetbase 11 arithmetic). No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, 4 - 4 is 0, in any base arithmetic. Oops... But not in binary :) If you're using a 4 in your binary, you're probably doing something horribly wrong.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF? It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't directly required by the rules to agora-official, apparently. -woggle I've always sent my contract-related reports to a-b, but I'll start sending them to a-o if that is the consensus. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF? It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't directly required by the rules to agora-official, apparently. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lx Ntwthy dtplt #79 Digit Ranch (4) I change the name of the above land to: 4 Crop land #80 Digit Ranch (6) I change the name of the above land to: 6 Crop land #96 Digit Ranch (9) I change the name of the above land to: 9 Crop I'm going to assume you're not trying to do this in preparation for some scam based on an ambiguity between the names of your lands and the names of crops. I don't think these fail, but I think they *should* fail.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lx Ntwthy dtplt #79 Digit Ranch (4) I change the name of the above land to: 4 Crop land #80 Digit Ranch (6) I change the name of the above land to: 6 Crop land #96 Digit Ranch (9) I change the name of the above land to: 9 Crop I'm going to assume you're not trying to do this in preparation for some scam based on an ambiguity between the names of your lands and the names of crops. I don't think these fail, but I think they *should* fail. I'm just playing around with naming. Not sure what I'm doing with it yet, but I'll figure that out later.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amended rule number gain Floor(power) random Crops Might want to update this. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On 6/4/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I create a Digit Ranch (land #73) with a Seed of 5 and a WRV in the possession of Eris. WOO! 5! -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WOO! 5! hail you. Proto: Create a rule entitled The Law of Fives with the following text: All numbers are five.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On 5/9/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I create a Digit Ranch (land #60) with a Seed of 0 and a WRV in the possession of comex Another 0? Madness... Also: What about the AFO?
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 14. This contract may be amended by any Farmer with the consent of the SoA and the majority consent of the other Farmers. Does the majority consent of the other Farmers mean the majority consent of all Farmers except the amender, all Farmers except the SoA, or all Farmers except the amender and the SoA? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 14. This contract may be amended by any Farmer with the consent of the SoA and the majority consent of the other Farmers. Does the majority consent of the other Farmers mean the majority consent of all Farmers except the amender, all Farmers except the SoA, or all Farmers except the amender and the SoA? -root It seems like it would imply the latter. It sounds like: A can do something, provided that B agrees and 1/2 the people who aren't A or B agree. -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com
