gmane.games.nomic.agora.discuss

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Suber Classic

Charles Walker — 2013-05-22T16:35:23

FOR, but did you think about whether the currency should be fixed? I'm
not sure if they're something you should be able to trade.


A Long Service award? (A quarter, say, or six months) Getting an
(interested) AI 3 proposal passed? A ribbon for recruiting a new
player or flipping a nomic's Recognition? Adding something to the
Dictionary? Initiating a successful criminal prosecution?
Perhaps differentiate - in the spirit of Renaissance - between ways of
playing/winning nomic and have one Ribbon for scam/paradox type wins
and another for points or other "playing the game" type wins.

--
Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: How to possibly win by paradox without really trying

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-21T00:13:56



On Mon, 20 May 2013, omd wrote:

Fails because:
       If a promise is possessed by the Tree, any player except the
       promise's author...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Subjective Criminology

Tanner Swett — 2013-05-21T00:05:29

I think I support the idea of a trivial cost for making promises, since it is quite easy for a person to be arbitrarily annoying using them. I also like being able to submit a ton of identical promises. I suggest that people be required to pay a single fee whenever they create any number of identical promises.

—Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: All of the attempts to cash a promise in this message fail.

Tanner Swett — 2013-05-20T23:44:03

Actually, this number is intended to be the largest counterexample to Goldbach's conjecture less than or equal to 2^65 - 2. I meant to transfer each promise to myself immediately after submitting it. The intended effect is that in order to determine which promises are successfully transferred and then cashed and which are not, we process the message from the beginning forward, assuming that all promises are successfully transferred, and then when we find that a promise is successfully transferred but not successfully cashed, we backtrack and mark it as not successfully transferred (but then assume, again, that all subsequent promises are successfully transferred). Thus, we may be required to search through an extremely large number of possibilities.

—Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: All of the attempts to cash a promise in this message fail.

Elliott Hird — 2013-05-20T21:36:37

I think we decide CFJs based on much weaker things.

DIS: Re: BUS: All of the attempts to cash a promise in this messagefail.

omd — 2013-05-20T21:32:12

Comment: This number is intended to be 2**65 - 2.  It is easy to
demonstrate with arbitrarily overwhelming probability that it is the
sum of two prime numbers using the Miller-Rabin test [1]; it is also
possible to prove it deterministically with the AKS test, but it would
likely take a number of CPU days, and the probability of the CPU
making an error, despite being miniscule, is greater than the
probability of the Miller-Rabin test being wrong.  It might make an
interesting CFJ whether the Miller-Rabin test is thus sufficient, but
you accidentally transferred all these promises to the Tree so all
your cashing attempts failed. :)

[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+36893488147419103183+prime
- 2**65 - 2 = 36893488147419103183 + 47

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Trade offers

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-20T19:41:04


On Mon, 20 May 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:

You might make it so the Seller can limit who can accept the offer
(if e's after a specific set of partners).  E.g. end of first paragraph:
"The Seller can include a list of qualified buyers, which defaults to
all persons if no list is provided" and replace "any other person" with
"any qualified buyer".

This is a good mechanic to use in implementing the first actual 
auction.  E.g. "When an auction is over, the Auctioneer CAN and SHALL 
make a Trade Offer on behalf of the Seller, with the auctioned item as 
the Wares and the final auction price as the Tender, with the winner(s) 
as the only qualified buyers".

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Subjective Criminology

Sean Hunt — 2013-05-20T01:58:40


I don't think so. There are reasonably interesting uses for large numbers
of promises (e.g. berks), which is why I deliberately chose a slightly
vague criminal penalty, so as to both hopefully stem these sorts of promise
chains and also making criminal law more interesting by adding crimes where
are difficult to evaluate objectively.

-scshunt

DIS: Re: BUS: Subjective Criminology

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-20T01:44:00


On Sun, 19 May 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:

If we have a liquid currency with large granularity (like Yaks), would it 
be worth making a (minor, relatively trivial) cost for making promises?

DIS: Re: BUS: Subjective Criminology

Charles Walker — 2013-05-20T01:29:27


I think this is missing an "Enact a Rule with the text:", or other words to that effect.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Personnel File & Time Sheet

Sean Hunt — 2013-05-20T01:19:44

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Charles Walker
<charles.w.walker< at >gmail.com>wrote:



I thought that proposal failed. Thanks.

-scshunt

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Personnel File & Time Sheet

Charles Walker — 2013-05-20T01:18:48

What about the Speaker?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Direct Version

2013-05-20T00:34:27

The transfer is conditional on Wes being able to do something in the future (cash the promise, with a condition of 'false') that will be impossible whether the transfer succeeds or not (if it succeeds, the condition is false; if it fails, e can't cash it because e doesn't own it), so it unambiguously fails.  

(Actually, I'm not quite sure it's possible to get a paradox out of this at all, because "can't transfer, can't cash" is also self-consistent, so it's easy to get "can transfer -> can't transfer", but not "can't transfer -> can transfer".  I think there is probably a way, but I can't work it out right now.  It's also possible that the bistability means that *all* transfers from the Tree are paradoxical, like "this statement is true".)

Sent from my iPhone

On May 19, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim< at >u.washington.edu> wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: The Indirect Version

Sean Hunt — 2013-05-20T00:10:28


Arguments: Also FALSE, because there is no permutation of cashings which is
ultimately legal. This is a finite process and can be totally evaluated.

-scshunt

DIS: Re: BUS: The Direct Version

Sean Hunt — 2013-05-20T00:08:43


Arguments: FALSE, because Rule 2339 does not say anything about whether the
promise in question can be cashed while it is in the Tree's possession. The
legality of a transfer is determined only by whether or not the promise is
later cashed; thus, since it would be impossible for Wes to cash DOA while
possessing it, it cascades and transferring DOA from the Tree is impossible.

-scshunt

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Direct Version

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-19T23:55:18


On Sun, 19 May 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:

By that I mean: the transfer is conditional on the future "false" (hence
retroactive action).  Which is why, also, in the first case, the condition 
is not that the promise is cashable on the tree, but just that it is on the 
tree (so the fact that it is not "cashable from the tree" does not break
it).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Indirect Version

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-19T23:51:17



On Sun, 19 May 2013, comexk< at >gmail.com wrote:

Again, the collection is true and determinate, although
you are right this is more "oscillatory" than the last one.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Direct Version

Kerim Aydin — 2013-05-19T23:50:10


On Sun, 19 May 2013, comexk< at >gmail.com wrote:

My point was that it is not the cashing, but the Transfer in question.

When the promise is on the tree, the truth value is true and determinate.
When the promise is off the tree, the truth value is false and determinate.
Which is fine for forbidding the cashing.
But what about forbidding the transfer?

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: The Indirect Version

2013-05-19T23:43:15

This one also falls under "true and determinate".

omd

Sent from my iPhone

On May 19, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim< at >u.washington.edu> wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: The Direct Version

2013-05-19T23:36:55

This is, for the record, exactly the scam that prompted me to make my recent proposal regarding Messy Statements. I believe that under the current version, it's impossible to get a win with a scam like this that relies on infinite recursion.

However, I believe you messed it up anyway, first because cashing conditions are required to be "true and determinate", so the scam cannot be exploited with cashing conditions, and second because your condition is not actually paradoxical.  A promise cannot be cashed directly from the Tree, so the condition is equivalent to "false", so the promise cannot be cashed or transferred.  The fact that the condition is true at a time when it cannot be cashed anyway is irrelevant.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 19, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim< at >u.washington.edu> wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3310 assigned to woggle

Tanner Swett — 2013-05-18T14:40:17

All right, but I don't have any VCs, nor any way of obtaining them
within seven days, so I won't be able to pay this fine, and I can't be
punished for not paying it. Maybe a different sentence would be more
appropriate.

AltGr-Shift-Hyphen Machiavelli