omd wrote:
Consider the statement "Iff this statement is true, I am a banana." I
could CFJ on it, if necessary.
Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can
conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY
On Aug 2, 2013, at 6:38 AM, Fool wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 10:39 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements!
>>
>> —"Of course, who cares about truth-bearing statements, anyway" Machiavelli
>
> It's common enough to hear that classical logic is "a
On 2 August 2013 11:38, Fool wrote:
> It's common enough to hear that classical logic is "about truth" while
> intuitionistic is "about provability" or something like that, but I don't
> buy it.
Classic logic is about irrefutability.
On 01/08/2013 10:39 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Fool wrote:
You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird.
Heck no. Classical logic is weird.
But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements!
—"Of course, who cares about truth-bearing statement
On 01/08/2013 12:18 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool wrote:
As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's
paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some
alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Fool wrote:
>> You're right, intuitionistic logic is too weird.
>
> Heck no. Classical logic is weird.
But classical logic is the system obeyed by truth-bearing statements!
—"Of course, who cares about truth-bearing statements, anyway" Machiavelli
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Fool wrote:
> As I said right off the bat, I didn't CFJ a free-floating version of Curry's
> paradox. And that is basically why. Because then you only have to argue some
> alternate logic for free-floating statements. Typically, for example, just
> ignore it and sa
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Fool wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 10:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the
>>> promise belongs to the Tree.
>>>
>>
>> You can transfer it to yourself and cash it.
>>
>
> It doesn't work that way any
On 31/07/2013 10:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise, and the
promise belongs to the Tree.
You can transfer it to yourself and cash it.
It doesn't work that way anymore, and in any case the author is
excluded, and I am the author.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Fool wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 5:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> >> I fail to see the alleged biconditional.
>> >>
>> >
>> > As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other
>> instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed.
>>
>> How about cashing it
On 30/07/2013 5:57 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I fail to see the alleged biconditional.
>>
>
> As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other
instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed.
How about cashing it?
The question is specifically whether _I_ can destroy the promise,
On Jul 30, 2013 6:35 AM, "Fool" wrote:
>
> On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
>>>
>>> The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
>>> mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
>>> with
On 2013-07-30, Fool wrote:
> Anyways, you can't leave. Pretty sure I explained that right off the bat...
It's easy to leave. Staying away is another matter.
--
Michael Slone
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 16:23 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> What, dare I ask, did ehird do?
Most commonly (in terms of annoying but not dishonourable behaviour),
intentionally violate rules.
E was (and presumably still is) quite strongly against scams that
involved deregistering players, though.
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 07:18 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Anyways, you can't leave. Pretty sure I explained that right off the bat...
Whether someone is a player or not is different from whether they're
attempting to participate or not. (Bucky should be pretty good evidence
of this, for instance.) This is
On 30 July 2013 15:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
>> On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> > > This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
>> > > disapprove of it.
>> > >
>> > > (People who were
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 3:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> > > On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > > (there are
> > > > definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> > > > chose not to; being hated
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > > This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
> > > disapprove of it.
> > >
> > > (People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now
On 30/07/2013 3:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
(there are
definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a
dictatorship).
I don't
On 30/07/2013 3:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
disapprove of it.
(People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
No, you are in the category of "annoying, but with hon
On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a
On 29/07/2013 11:35 PM, omd wrote:
Per a discussion on IRC, the fact that the rules /use/ the truth value
of a particular statement for some unrelated purpose shouldn't
actually affect anything.
Agreed, shouldn't! But it seems that it does.
Consider the statement "Iff this statement is true
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:
> This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
> disapprove of it.
>
> (People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
No, you are in the category of "annoying, but with honor." :p
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > (there are
> > definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> > chose not to; being hated by the rest of Agora is generally not worth a
> > dictatorship).
>
> I don't understand this bit anyw
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> Finally, any method that achieves dictatorships via locking players out
> from gameplay for a week or more is typically frowned upon (there are
> definitely cases where I and coconspirators could have done this, but
> chose not to; being hated by the rest
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 23:35 -0400, omd wrote:
> Per previously mentioned entirely constructivist arguments, we can
> conclude from the /existence/ of this statement that I am a banana.
I think bananas count as biological, and you seem capable of
communicating via email in English, so I don't see a
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
>> The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
>> mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
>> with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the au
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool wrote:
> The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
> mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
> with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise
> with notice IFF the sentence
On 29/07/2013 8:04 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Fool wrote:
:-)
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b -> ~c).
But (b -> ~c) -> (~~b -> ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
Let's
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Fool wrote:
> :-)
>
> Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
> player (b -> ~c).
>
> But (b -> ~c) -> (~~b -> ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
> de-register you, you are not a player.
Let's ask if you are a dictator (c).
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Fool wrote:
>> However, Rule 1688 says
>> "except as allowed by an Instrument". I don't think you can point to a
>> single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've
>> constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and
>> the
On 29/07/2013 7:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote:
Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The
rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really
have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are
extr
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The
> rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really
> have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are
> extraneous. Otherwise you're saying w
On 29/07/2013 7:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote:
Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
player (b -> ~c).
But (b -> ~c) -> (~~b -> ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
de-register you, you are not a player.
But
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:35 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Let's ask if you are a player (c). If I de-registered you, you are NOT a
> player (b -> ~c).
>
> But (b -> ~c) -> (~~b -> ~c). So if it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to
> de-register you, you are not a player.
But it is impossible, it's secured and y
On 29/07/2013 6:46 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool wrote:
How's that. Why is it (~(a->b) -> ~a) and not (a -> (a->b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) -> ~a
It's allowed if a -> b, therefore ~(a -> b) -> ~a.
So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to d
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:18 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
> >> And the time limit?
> > Typically "as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
> > worked or not".
>
> Note that this has not alw
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
>> And the time limit?
> Typically "as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
> worked or not".
Note that this has not always been followed; scshunt kept an
unambiguous dictatorship
To expand on my previous argument, for what it's worth, I really don't
see an interpretation that causes a problem whose solution would be
making a rule (about evaluating the rules generally) saying something
that (a) is assumed in just about any other context and (b) has always
been left to custom
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:15 -0400, Fool wrote:
> And the time limit?
Typically "as long as it takes people to determine whether the scam
worked or not".
--
ais523
On 29/07/2013 6:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote:
Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it?
Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical
dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain,
an
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:44 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Uh.. ok. What's the trophy and what's the time limit for getting it?
Anything permanent that sticks around in the gamestate. Typical
dictatorship trophies include my Patent Title of H., the Town Fountain,
and omd's trophy whereby e extended the votin
This whole thing strikes me as being in incredibly poor form and I
disapprove of it.
(People who were around to see me years ago can stop laughing now.)
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Fool wrote:
> How's that. Why is it (~(a->b) -> ~a) and not (a -> (a->b)) ?
IMPOSSIBLE except as allowed
~(allowed) -> ~a
It's allowed if a -> b, therefore ~(a -> b) -> ~a.
> So, you admit it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE for me to do this stuff? :-)
Possibly.
On 29 July 2013 23:40, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora
>> typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a
>> power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; norm
On 29/07/2013 6:32 PM, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
How do you define "iff" (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a -> b)<-> a) -> b holds intuitio
On 29/07/2013 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
Where does a week or more come from?
It's the length of time to adopt a proposal; most such scams normally
involved preventing everyone else from voting for long enough to pass a
dictatorship proposal.
I passed a rule giving me immediate amendment powe
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora
typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a
power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the
time limit for that is long enough for the dict
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> How do you define "iff" (in the rules) in the absence of the law of
> excluded middle? It may not be the same way that the rules themselves
> do.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
((a -> b) <-> a) -> b holds intuitionistically, but
(((a -> b) -> a) &
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says tha
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 18:20 -0400, Fool wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > You forgot the Gerontocracy. The "with notice" is modified by the Elder
> > objections, thus breaking your loop.
>
> I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
>
> > Also, Agora generally denie
On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can
destroy a promise
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with
rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with
notice IFF the sentence in its "destruc
On 29/07/2013 6:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
You forgot the Gerontocracy. The "with notice" is modified by the Elder
objections, thus breaking your loop.
I did not. Gerontocracy was lifted by proposal 7519.
Also, Agora generally denies the law of the excluded middle
It's constructive and does n
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote:
> Curry's paradox hasn't gotten much attention in Agora. It came up in
> discussion a couple of times, and in terms of usage in-game, all I found
> was someone CFJing a free-floating sentence "If this sentence is true,
> then I win." That was about
55 matches
Mail list logo
