Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

I agree with this interpretation, but I find nowhere that suggests that payments must only be legal values of the balance switch. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Jun 20,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive >> integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give >> fractional parts of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On 06/20/17 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested > elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch". If you have a > TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and > volume are fixed on some kind of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice points are). You don't have to know what it is, but you _do_ have to spell it correctly. Greetings,

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

I think I'm OK with supporting that interpretation. 天火狐 On 20 June 2017 at 16:09, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote: > > I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance > > values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote: > I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance > values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine > few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, > and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote: > On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an > "algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense > ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; > on the other hand, I'm not convinced that

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an "algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance values is shiny" is

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what > > octonian space and lattice points are > > I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more > offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should > be as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive > integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give > fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero > shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay > shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion > space and the distance

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

I present these comments as evidence on the called CFJ and request that for the ease of all participants, the Secretary publish a preliminary report explaining the state of the game, if this were to be true. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jun 19,

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion space and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed lattice point, being the amount to be payed. Publius Scribonius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > There's a precedent (that I can't find right now, I can't remember > the statement context) Ah, here we go: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1813

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > The sentence specifically addressing negative payments is required, > and cannot be similarly elided, as it serves a different purpose: > it stops people from “paying” someone in order to take all of the > “payee”’s Shinies for emself. There's a

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:23 PM, omd wrote: > I pay ais523 0.5 shinies. > > CFJ: ais523 has 0 shinies. > > Arguments: > > First of all, does 0.5 count as an "amount" per Rule 2483? Gratuity: there’s an elision here for stylistic reasons, but the rules nonetheless bar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

By 2240 the latest clause takes precedence - the switch flips and defaults. G. Is right I believe On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 19:44 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote: > > You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers > > being

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote: > You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers > being reasonable. Do you know what I think happens? By R2483, a balance is decreased by i and a balance is increased by i. But balance is a switch that can only be integers, soo... (by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers being reasonable. Quazie's remarks about personal balances being broken is still a concern, and if it does actually go through it could be a little inconvenient. 天火狐 On 19 June 2017 at 21:25, V.J Rada wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition of amount. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam wrote: > Hr > > I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies. >

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 17:48 CuddleBeam wrote: > Hr > > I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies. > Why? There's a CFJ already pending, and a shiny releveling event can fix agora immediately but just leave you broken. Confused by why you'd attempt this.

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

Are we opening the mathematical can of worms here on Agora? Oh dear. 天火狐 On 19 June 2017 at 20:48, CuddleBeam wrote: > Hr > > I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies. >