Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #180
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Sunday, October 03 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 180

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4384
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 00:32:51 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 4384
> Kernel
> Malenkai
> Due: Sat Oct  9 17:57:51 1999
> Sphere: Wombles of Wibbledon

Ah, third time's the charm.  Finally this is submitted in the correct
sphere. :-)

-Hubert

"I wouldn't know about coy. I've got a Weed Whacker strapped to my arm." 

------------------------------

From: "Aaron V. Humphrey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Shrubbery
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 02:29:48 -0400 (EDT)

The problem, as far as I can tell, with the Fat-Acka game is that it
may have, according to its rules, been reduced to Thin-Acka.  If it
has, then the only solution which avoids Fat-Acka's disappearance
is EAP's, of creating a game where this did not happen.  Thin-Acka
has taken on a life of its own, as must be evident to us all by now,
but Fat-Acka's lifeline is precarious.

Don't you all wish I'd voted against this as I would have had I been
bothering with voting at the time?  It was sufficiently close that I
think one more vote against would have pushed it under...

--
--Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/)
Song In My Head--Midnight Oil:Dream World
Current Book--S.M. Stirling:Island In The Sea of Time
This is a perfect world; I'm riding on an incline

------------------------------

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thread^W Game Split
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 09:59:43 -0400 (EDT)

Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> 
> >I object to this as well, since I haven't seen any thread dependent
> >actions yet - (Acka-Lite and Acka-Bloat are independent games now and
> >Acka-EA!P! is just plain weird).
> >
> >In fat-Ackanomic I change my name to K 3. In EA!P!'s-Ackanomic I change
> >my name to K 4. In Ackanomic-lite I leave my unoffical name as K 2.
> 
> I thought the point of the message, the re-unifaction of all threads, was a
> worthy point. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing? Why is this
> something we should make as difficult as possible?
> 
> CnH

I think the "thread split" is at a point were the two conflicting view
of the game state have become separate games; performing an action in
acka-lite but not in fat-acka is like performing an action in Ackanomic
and not in Agora.

K 2

------------------------------

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Facka: Candyland?
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:19:49 -0400 (EDT)

Randy Hall wrote:
> one of which is playing chess, and one of which is
> playing candyland, why don't you all vote, and _everyone_ play either
> candyland or chess

candyland?

K 2

------------------------------

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:26:53 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter
> has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5.
> Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well.

I still beleive this paragraph is erronous - Proposal 4374 was submitted
to EA!P! in the other game.

K 2

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:34:05 -0400 (EDT)

K 2 wrote:
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter
> > has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5.
> > Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well.
> 
> I still beleive this paragraph is erronous - Proposal 4374 was submitted
> to EA!P! in the other game.

It was *also* submitted to [email-masked], which made it a valid
submission to this game, and which was in no way related to the other game.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:37:30 -0400 (EDT)

Joseph DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> K 2 wrote:
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter
> > > has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5.
> > > Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well.
> >
> > I still beleive this paragraph is erronous - Proposal 4374 was submitted
> > to EA!P! in the other game.
> 
> It was *also* submitted to [email-masked], which made it a valid
> submission to this game, and which was in no way related to the other game.
> 
> /dev/joe

At the time I presumed there was only one game - and that by sending it
to the ackabot I was saving EA!P! the hassle of distributing it
emself...

K 2

------------------------------

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4386
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:35:31 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> Proposal 4386
> I *am* that other game.
[snip]

> Proposals which would effect this rule's decedents (for example by
> creating, modifying, or repealing a rule) or which would effect
> Acka-Lite's Game State, are invalid unless they are also submitted
> according to this rule's decedents.

I would vote for this except that this makes no requirement that the
proposal be ACCEPTED in Acka-Lite, merely submitted to both Acka's
simultaneously.   Not to mention that Acka-Light isn't going to care what
Acka thinks of it's game state.   A better phrasing would be

'
The descendant of this rule always track the exact set of rules as
currently exist in Acka-Lite.  The descendants of this rule may not be
modified in any manner except by modification by Acka-Lite in accordance
with the rules of Acka-Lite
'

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

------------------------------

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:38:46 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, K 2 wrote:
> At the time I presumed there was only one game - and that by sending it
> to the ackabot I was saving EA!P! the hassle of distributing it
> emself...

Unfortunately, EA!P! never announced ackabot as a legal bot for handling
proposals in that other game, so it wasn't legal even then.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

------------------------------

From: Kelly Kelly <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4386
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:48:11 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, JT wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 [email-masked] wrote:
> > Proposal 4386
> > I *am* that other game.
> [snip]
> 
> > Proposals which would effect this rule's decedents (for example by
> > creating, modifying, or repealing a rule) or which would effect
> > Acka-Lite's Game State, are invalid unless they are also submitted
> > according to this rule's decedents.
> 
> I would vote for this except that this makes no requirement that the
> proposal be ACCEPTED in Acka-Lite, merely submitted to both Acka's
> simultaneously.   Not to mention that Acka-Light isn't going to care what
> Acka thinks of it's game state.   A better phrasing would be
> 

from the proposal:

"Acka-Lite's Game State may only be manipulated according to
this rule's decedents, this takes precedence over all other rules."

thus for the purposes of modifing the Acka-Lite rule suite only proposals
deemed effecual under the acka-lite rule suite will have effect. The
proposals paragraph is just there for later on....

K 2

> '
> The descendant of this rule always track the exact set of rules as
> currently exist in Acka-Lite.  The descendants of this rule may not be
> modified in any manner except by modification by Acka-Lite in accordance
> with the rules of Acka-Lite
> '
> 
> --JT
> 
> -- 
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------

From: Kelly Kelly <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:50:30 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, JT wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, K 2 wrote:
> > At the time I presumed there was only one game - and that by sending it
> > to the ackabot I was saving EA!P! the hassle of distributing it
> > emself...
> 
> Unfortunately, EA!P! never announced ackabot as a legal bot for handling
> proposals in that other game, so it wasn't legal even then.
> 

and it was off line at the time so /dev/joe didn't think it was legal
either....

> --JT
> 
> -- 
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4380
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 13:03:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Kelly Kelly wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, K 2 wrote:
> > > At the time I presumed there was only one game - and that by sending it
> > > to the ackabot I was saving EA!P! the hassle of distributing it
> > > emself...
> > 
> > Unfortunately, EA!P! never announced ackabot as a legal bot for handling
> > proposals in that other game, so it wasn't legal even then.
> > 
> 
> 
> and it was off line at the time so /dev/joe didn't think it was legal
> either....

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

------------------------------

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Facka: Candyland?
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 13:25:02 -0400 (EDT)

> > one of which is playing chess, and one of which is
> > playing candyland, why don't you all vote, and _everyone_ play either
> > candyland or chess
> 
> candyland?

Candyland is a board game popular in the US.  It is about as unlike chess
as can be.  Apparently its popularity has not reached internationally.

George

------------------------------

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Facka: Must CFJ 730 be judged true? (was something else)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 15:22:27 -0400 (EDT)

Mueller wrote:

> >But that CFJ is necessarily TRUE, or it was never submitted.  There is no
> >need to wait; if not, you will be waiting for a rather long time :-)
> 
> No.
> 
> When you have two threads then the decision mechanism is started in both.

Yes. :-)

I would be interested to hear how an entity could truthfully
say: "I do not exist", without calling skyhooks, divinity, "its 
a metagame decision" and similar external ex-logical kludges? 
The "decision mechanism" is not started in a game that has no 
rules.  In the old days (and perhaps even now), (F)Acka had a
pretty bad hack (that I believe I wrote part of) that said 
"Game custom is an external concept"; "CFJs become part of game
custom".  Clearly either meaningless or has the effect of 
actually internalizing game custom (which then does not exist
and cannot be created in the FALSE "thread").

So, it leaves the judge having to reason (in the absence of 
undiscovered facts, insight, or hacks on the matter): I am
judging this, therefore I and the game state exist therefore
it is TRUE.  This sort of thing is rightfully ignored on a 
daily basis, but I don't see how a nonexistent CotC can 
deliver CFJ 730 is FALSE. (q.v. CFJ 222, 227, 228, 230, 232, or
thereabouts).

It seems where CFJ 730 is actually (would be) FALSE, the persons 
that are the judges on the matter just never do anything.  
For a while (and a small part of me still believes and hopes 
this), I believed that that was what breadbox was doing -- 
somehow he discovered some part of the game state that 
invalidated his (or the game's existence). 

As a (possibly) interesting diversion, its interesting to
note that Physicist Roger Penrose in one of his books (either
_The Emperor's New Mind_ or _Shadows of the Mind_) argues 
that since humans can "understand" the problems with things
like "This statement is false" and halting problems, and 
digital computers get hung up on this sort of thing, that 
somehow there is some "something" that will forever prevent 
a digital computer from being "intelligent" in a human sense,
and that materialism and strong AI and the like are impossible.
I'm not sure I agree with Penrose's arguments, but its 
interesting anyway (at least to me).

George

------------------------------

End of acka-research Digest V4 #180
***********************************