DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419
On 2/15/2014 4:52 PM, Brian Blomlie wrote: -First thesis- The contradiction consisting in having escape velocity and a score of 0 If there is a player of Agora who has escape velocity, then there doesn’t exist a player that has escape velocity. Here I’m making the assumption that the rule is to be read logically, in which case you have „one or more specified players have achieved escape velocity“ and „all players’ scores are set to 0“ happening at the same time.‹1› This is obviously a contradiction, and not a logically consistent way of winning the game. This isn't logically inconsistent. have achieved escape velocity is a past-perfective statement, meaning that it doesn't matter if they currently have escape velocity, only that they once did. Even if the score reset explicitly happened before they won, the statement would hold true. -Second thesis- The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by/being the game ending, without the score being reset Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) being ended and finally (c) the scores being reset. If the game is won and then ended (or winning is ending the game), the scores cannot be reset. The scores being reset follows necessarily from winning the game, but can’t follow if the game has ended. Therefore it isn’t possible for the game to be won, end and then finally the score being reset. Nor is it possible for the game to be won and end at the same time, being followed by the score being reset. This is fallacious. It only necessarily follows if you assume the logical system still exists. If the game is over the rules have no power and the system no longer exists. In other words, the actual statement for any consequence in Agora is: P(r) - r has power R(c) - consequence c of rule R occurs C(c2) - consequence c2 of consequence C occurs R(c) AND P(r) - C(c2) For a layman refutation, it's absurd to claim that a game can't end because rules specify events that happen after it ends. That would imply most games can't end because they don't explicitly say This happens, unless the game is over for every outcome. -Third thesis- The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by the score being reset and the game ending thereafter Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) the score being reset, followed by (c) the game ending. If the game is won, the score will be reset. If the score has been reset, the game isn’t won anymore, therefore there would be no reason to end the game. From this it seems plausible to conclude that the game being ended must follow from the game being won. This is the only logically consistent way of winning the game, it does not however, and cannot, follow that the game is ended because of winning the game in this manner, as has been shown. As has been shown, this relies on faulty premises.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419
Sorry, the statement isn't past-perfctive but rather present-perfective. My statement still holds as perfectives refer to some event as a whole, not (necessarily) to any current state.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419
That’s covered by my second thesis. I’d rather say our disagreement is semantical. Because if the game has (present-perfect) ended is a true statement, then it clearly hasn’t ended according to my definition of having ended. Or if it did, then that statement would no longer apply to the game we’re currently playing, because it couldn’t be the same game. Am 16.02.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Nicholas Evans nich...@gmail.com: Sorry, the statement isn't past-perfctive but rather present-perfective. My statement still holds as perfectives refer to some event as a whole, not (necessarily) to any current state.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419
On 2014-02-16 1:06 PM, Nicholas Evans wrote: Sorry, the statement isn't past-perfctive but rather present-perfective. My statement still holds as perfectives refer to some event as a whole, not (necessarily) to any current state. It might have been the past impossible never tense.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regarding r2419
My line of argument falls on the fact that I didn’t make clear that I’m assuming that the scores being reset actually serves a purpose within the frame of the game itself. If it doesn’t the game is free to end as it pleases without the score being reset. Seeing as the scores being reset is explicitly part of the rule (as opposed to the game ending), and assuming that, as part of a rule, it also serves a function, then it wouldn’t make sense for the game to end without having the scores being reset. If you are right though, and winning did in fact end the game, in which case I’m not quite sure what we’re doing here, then it’d make sense to make a proposal to change r2419 and remove the useless part about resetting the score. ;) -Thimblefox Am 16.02.2014 um 18:00 schrieb Nicholas Evans nich...@gmail.com: On 2/15/2014 4:52 PM, Brian Blomlie wrote: -First thesis- The contradiction consisting in having escape velocity and a score of 0 If there is a player of Agora who has escape velocity, then there doesn’t exist a player that has escape velocity. Here I’m making the assumption that the rule is to be read logically, in which case you have „one or more specified players have achieved escape velocity“ and „all players’ scores are set to 0“ happening at the same time.‹1› This is obviously a contradiction, and not a logically consistent way of winning the game. This isn't logically inconsistent. have achieved escape velocity is a past-perfective statement, meaning that it doesn't matter if they currently have escape velocity, only that they once did. Even if the score reset explicitly happened before they won, the statement would hold true. Ah, you’re right. This should still be covered by the second one though. -Second thesis- The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by/being the game ending, without the score being reset Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) being ended and finally (c) the scores being reset. If the game is won and then ended (or winning is ending the game), the scores cannot be reset. The scores being reset follows necessarily from winning the game, but can’t follow if the game has ended. Therefore it isn’t possible for the game to be won, end and then finally the score being reset. Nor is it possible for the game to be won and end at the same time, being followed by the score being reset. This is fallacious. It only necessarily follows if you assume the logical system still exists. If the game is over the rules have no power and the system no longer exists. In other words, the actual statement for any consequence in Agora is: P(r) - r has power R(c) - consequence c of rule R occurs C(c2) - consequence c2 of consequence C occurs R(c) AND P(r) - C(c2) For a layman refutation, it's absurd to claim that a game can't end because rules specify events that happen after it ends. That would imply most games can’t end because they don't explicitly say This happens, unless the game is over for every outcome. -Third thesis- The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by the score being reset and the game ending thereafter Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) the score being reset, followed by (c) the game ending. If the game is won, the score will be reset. If the score has been reset, the game isn’t won anymore, therefore there would be no reason to end the game. From this it seems plausible to conclude that the game being ended must follow from the game being won. This is the only logically consistent way of winning the game, it does not however, and cannot, follow that the game is ended because of winning the game in this manner, as has been shown. As has been shown, this relies on faulty premises.
