Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #41
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, April 8 1997        Volume 02 : Number 041

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

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 20:03:48 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Translation attempt #2 

>> Hey hey!  I have a JMCL!  And having long since removed myself from the
>> scandavian treasure hunt thingee (I'm no match for /dev/joe even though the
>> clues were intiguing) I hereby agree to give it to the first player to name
>> their house after me.
>
>I re-name my house (currently called /dev/house) to be /dev/snowgod.
>
>/dev/joe

I give my JMCL to /dev/joe and hope that his house continues to be named in
my honor.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:07:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Translation attempt #2

snowgod wrote:
> I give my JMCL to /dev/joe and hope that his house continues to be named in
> my honor.

I accept this gift.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:22:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: JMCL Usage

I am pointing my JMCL at Narf.
I am naming Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 10.
I am pressing the 'Push Me' button.

/dev/joe
(Why not push the push me button?  Ask Malenkai, he wrote the blueprint. :-)

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

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 01:44:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  TM's and other BWG

All this talk of Turing Machines,  Platonism and Pragmatism has my head
spinning.  Never having taken a philosophy course,  and barely getting
through high school algebra,  you geniuses are way over my head.

But I still find it fascinating.  And I guess it won't hurt too much to
throw my two cents' (Acka) in:

I did once read a short aritcle on Godel's Therum,  the one that was
linked to Acka's home page.  While it was by no means a definitive
treatment of GT (one thing I did get out of algebra class was that
mathematic concepts could never be accurately nor completely described in
non-mathemastical language),  the article was interesting and somewhat
informative.  It was also fundamentally simple,  as stated by breadbox. 
I any set,  there will be a subset that is true,  but unprovable.  It
makes no ruling about a subset of true and provable.

IMHO,  any set (mathematic,  philosophic,  theologic,  biologic,  et.
al.)  contains four basic subsets:  True and Provable,  False and
Provable,  True and Unprovable,  and False and Unprovable.  The second
subset is almost always discounted,  because once disproven,  the
assumption,  theory,  belief,  etc.  is thrown out and relegated to
historical footnote or the status of "folklore".  The first subset is
generally also ignored,  save in the recitation by memorization method
taught in elementary school (and beyond).  One plus one equals two, 
water is made of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom (except in
the real world where four hydrogen atoms bond to two oxygen atoms),  "in
1492,  Columbus sailed the ocean blue".  Seldom does the interest or
study of this first subset go any furhter,  unless you are involved in
*really* deep study of a specific field.

This leaves the last two subsets.  It has been my experience that
scientists and mathemitians (related but seperate groups of sociopaths) 
spend much of their time on the third subset,  while those pursuing
phiolosphy or metaphisics (a term I still don't fully understand or agree
with,  but that's another story)  concentrate mostly on the fourth. 

What's neat about the subsets is the fact that they are dynamic, 
constantly changing category,  mostly to one of the first two from the
last two,  with a few going directly from one to two or three to one, 
and in very rare cases,  from four to one.  It is this fluid aspect that
limits our comprehension more than merely the existance of the last two
subsets.  If they were static,  we could eventually reach a concensus on
what belongs in which subset,  but with the constant flux and growth of
understanding about the way the universe works and ourselves,  it is
unlikely that we will ever see a final,  perfect set.  I find myself
agreeing with  Robert Sevin that the day I meet someone that knows the
Truth,  and can convince,  is the day I'll go completely round the bend.

But what's all this got to do with Acka?  Acka is a finite set that
defines itself.  Eventually,  if the game goes on long enough,  a last
winner shall be declared,  the Ruleset will be complete,  and we can all
start over again.  What's that you say,  Acka is infinite?  we will all
be long dead and forgotten and Acka will keep going,  like a certain
bunny we know (an idea for a new entity just struck me)?  Sorry to be the
bearer of bad news,  but eventually,  the Ruleset will become large
enough that no new Rules will be possible,  and the last winner will be
the one that either writes that rule or points out that the last rule
doen't work.  Of course,  we will all get fed up with this silly game and
quit long before that happens.  There is a cultish belief by some that
whoever writes the last rule becomes God.  Fit that into your
discussiopns of UTM's.  Thanks to Doug Chatham for finding this lunatic
fringe for me,  it was better than Harf. 

The point is,  not being an infinite set,  and by its virtue (sic) fo
being self ammending and therefore self defining,  the Ruleset fo
Ackanomic must always fall into the first subset,  True and Provable or
the second,  False and Provable.  (If there were no Rules that at any
time could fit into the second subset,  no CFJ could be judged True.) 
Even a Paradox does not mean unprovable,  more often than not it means
(and is defined in our ruleset as) both True and False and provable.

Thanks for sitting still long enough to finish this.  There will be a
lynching party outside Niccolo Flychuck's residence later this evening. 
BYOB.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:13:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player

> We have a new player in Ackanomic!
> 
> <CarsesraC> has joined the parade of returning players with no undead.
> Please welcome him back to the game.  His real name is Jeroen M.W. van Dijk
> and his email adress is [email-masked]
> 
> breadbox has been selected by my (not too random :O) Registrar's Bot as his
> Mentor.

CarsesraC's starting cash is A$996, based on a total of 
A$20906 owned by 21 other players; then breadbox gets A$25 as Mentor.

/dev/joe
not the Financier but keeping track of this stuff now.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 01:34:18 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  TM's and other BWG 

>What's neat about the subsets is the fact that they are dynamic, 
>constantly changing category,  mostly to one of the first two from the
>last two,  with a few going directly from one to two or three to one, 
>and in very rare cases,  from four to one.  It is this fluid aspect that
>limits our comprehension more than merely the existance of the last two
>subsets.  If they were static,  we could eventually reach a concensus on
>what belongs in which subset,  but with the constant flux and growth of
>understanding about the way the universe works and ourselves,  it is
>unlikely that we will ever see a final,  perfect set.  I find myself
>agreeing with  Robert Sevin that the day I meet someone that knows the
>Truth,  and can convince,  is the day I'll go completely round the bend.

If your assumptions do not change, an assertion cannot move from one subset
to another. We may *think* that an assertion is in one of the subsets, but
turn out to be mistaken, and therefore it seems to move to another subset,
but I don't think any assertion can, strictly speaking, move from one subset
to another. Of course, it is true that we are guaranteed that some
assertions are true and cannot be proven, and I am not even certain that we
are guaranteed to be able to determine which assertions fall into this
category. I have (in a somewhat unrelated topic) seen proofs that basically
said "We cannot prove assertion A to be true or false -- it is proven to be
unknowable under our current system." That is rather interesting, IMHO.

>But what's all this got to do with Acka?  Acka is a finite set that
>defines itself.  

Acka does not define itself. As CFJs have shown, we need a human reader to
define Acka, complete with their cultural, linguistic, and philosophic
background. The component of Acka known as Game Custom, which *cannot* be
eliminated, will always ensure that Acka is not self-defining. You'd have to
include all of human history as part of Acka. 

>Sorry to be the
>bearer of bad news,  but eventually,  the Ruleset will become large
>enough that no new Rules will be possible,  and the last winner will be
>the one that either writes that rule or points out that the last rule
>doen't work. 

This is by no means necessarily true. It is possible that it will always
evolve into new and different directions, or it is also possible that we
will eventually settle upon a set of rules that we like, and then stick with
them and never change them (except to make minor bug fixes, if that) -- Acka
would be just a bunch of people playing subgames and talking to one another.

I am not vouching for the probability of either of the above scenarios, but
there is no need to write off Acka as a lost cause just yet.

>Fit that into your
>discussiopns of UTM's.  Thanks to Doug Chatham for finding this lunatic
>fringe for me,  it was better than Harf. 

Better than Harf? Hmmmmm.

>The point is,  not being an infinite set,  and by its virtue (sic) fo
>being self ammending and therefore self defining,

It may or may not be an infinite set, even if it is self-defining, which I
do not believe it to be.

>Ackanomic must always fall into the first subset,  True and Provable or
>the second,  False and Provable.  (If there were no Rules that at any
>time could fit into the second subset,  no CFJ could be judged True.) 
>Even a Paradox does not mean unprovable,  more often than not it means
>(and is defined in our ruleset as) both True and False and provable.

This is not true, even given your assumptions. All sufficiently complex
systems (as Acka certainly is) will have assertions within them that are
true and not provable.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Harf

I hearby unambiguously the Proposal 1906 is probably fully deserving of
the title harfy.  

Hrm, that was actually a somewhat ambiguous statement, now that I go back
and read it over, which I am doing at this very moment. I mean, I say it's
unambiguous, but then I say that it is "probably" harfy, which is really
rather ambiguous of me.

Nevertheless, Proposal 1906 is certainly harfy.

Proposal 1910 probably isn't harfy, but I don't understand it, and that's
almost as good.  I'll ambiguously state that it is definitely harfy as
well.

All other pending Proposals can console themselves with the reasoning that
in a platonic Universe like Acka, nothing can be definitely stated as not
harfy, but meerly that we have yet to uncover the harf within in.
Alternatively, they could all just fail in utter, wretched, despondancy.
In either case, I'm declaring the CFJ 370 thred harfy, except that I
can't.

                             - Vynd.... 

                                        ...is going to bed now

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:24:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma Day

It appears that a couple of Otzma Days have gone by, due to prime
proposals passing, without me noticing. I'll post the dats later, for your
reference.

Anyway, I am anouncing an Otzma Day, it will begin three days from now.

Niccolo Flychuck
Rune Maker

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 04:00:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord) 

Ahhh... it's nice to see that once again I have managed to place myself
squarely in the center of controversy.

Narf

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 03:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  TM's and other BWG

> This is not true, even given your assumptions. All sufficiently
> complex systems (as Acka certainly is) will have assertions within
> them that are true and not provable.

Hang on: remember that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem only addresses
formal systems. Ackanomic almost certainly does not qualify as a
formal system, as its rules are written in a most informal language
(that is, English, as opposed to something like algebra).

b

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

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 09:04:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party On!

What happened at the party hall party?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:49:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: name change

I am hereby changing my Ackanomic name.  My current name
is FiBOnacCi, my new name will be ThinMan, and my real name
is John Bollinger.  The reason for the change, though I am
no longer required to supply one, is that the name FiBOnacCi
has outlived its usefulness, and is hard to spell to boot.

FiBOnacCi
soon to be ThinMan again

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:07:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

> Hang on: remember that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem only addresses
> formal systems. Ackanomic almost certainly does not qualify as a
> formal system, as its rules are written in a most informal language
> (that is, English, as opposed to something like algebra).
	There are also certain formal systems to which Godel's Theorem
doesn't apply; for example, non-self-referential systems by definition do 
not have this problem (this doesn't apply to Acka at all..)

- -- Mohammed
BWG

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:07:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party On!

> What happened at the party hall party?
	Oops.  I was all ready for it a week ago; then RL got crazed on me.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:15:37 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  TM's and other BWG 

>> This is not true, even given your assumptions. All sufficiently
>> complex systems (as Acka certainly is) will have assertions within
>> them that are true and not provable.
>
>Hang on: remember that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem only addresses
>formal systems. Ackanomic almost certainly does not qualify as a
>formal system, as its rules are written in a most informal language
>(that is, English, as opposed to something like algebra).

Well, what this means, IMHO, is that the rules are more flexible, since they
are subject to interpretation. It still seems as though some true and
unprovable assertions would exist, but perhaps not. I suppose Acka is
flexible enough to alter it's rules to make such assertions provable. But
then, I would assume, different assertions would arise that are true and
unprovable. Hmmm.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 	There are also certain formal systems to which Godel's Theorem
> doesn't apply; for example, non-self-referential systems by definition do 
> not have this problem (this doesn't apply to Acka at all..)
> 
> -- Mohammed
> BWG
> 

Any sufficiently complex formal system (complex enough to have any
interest at all) is either incomplete or inconsistent.  Period.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:49:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

> Any sufficiently complex formal system (complex enough to have any
> interest at all) is either incomplete or inconsistent.  Period.
	How can a non-self-referential system fall under Godel's 
theorem?  I've seen only a few significantly different proofs (with 
varying degrees of formality) and all of them rely heavily on set theory 
and self-reference within the system being examined.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Any sufficiently complex formal system (complex enough to have any
> > interest at all) is either incomplete or inconsistent.  Period.
> 	How can a non-self-referential system fall under Godel's 
> theorem?  I've seen only a few significantly different proofs (with 
> varying degrees of formality) and all of them rely heavily on set theory 
> and self-reference within the system being examined.
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

Ok, perhaps my response was too short!

This is the real question:

How can you create a (sufficiently complex) formal system which is NOT
self-referential?

IB
keeping the BWG short

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:56:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Several Things (TMBG, Web-Harfing, etc)

> I have already brough up a few problems with the bot to Mohammed, but I
> would argue that there are still things which even perfect programs can't
> accomodate for, namely problems with the shell they are running under. Which
> I think this may be due to.
	If you have, I haven't gotten the mail.  As far as problems with 
the shell are concerned, it would be rather... let's say "ambitious" of 
me to say that the problems are not with my code for the bot but with 
python.
	Calvin's vote doesn't count because I distributed his proposal 
illegally the first time.

- -- Mohammed
not-so-great Promoter
fair-to-middling Tabulator
not-yet-Financier (Car save us all)

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:42:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

> Ok, perhaps my response was too short!
> 
> This is the real question:
> 
> How can you create a (sufficiently complex) formal system which is NOT
> self-referential?
	Sufficiently complex for what?

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > 	There are also certain formal systems to which Godel's Theorem
> > doesn't apply; for example, non-self-referential systems by definition do 
> > not have this problem (this doesn't apply to Acka at all..)
> > 
> > -- Mohammed
> > BWG
> > 
> 
> Any sufficiently complex formal system (complex enough to have any
> interest at all) is either incomplete or inconsistent.  Period.
> 
> IB

Who said this is a formal system, anyways?  Unless Acka has rules that we
have yet to "discover" as in Malenkai's Platonic argument, the Acka
ruleset is pretty much complete by definition.  The rules of Acka are the
rules of Acka, they're the only rules of Acka, anything that isn't in them
isn't a rule.  You could argue that game custom and CFJs and whatnot break
this, I suppose.  So lets pretend that we weren't going to allow anymore
CFJs, and that game custom doesn't exist.  See, that wasn't too hard,
now was it?  Then we have what could reasonably be called a complete
system, it describes everything that is possible in the Acka universe.  Is
it inconsistent?  Probably, but I don't think necessarily.  If we stopped
writing new rules, and concentrated on patching holes in what we have
already, I think that the rules of Acka, being entirely manmade and
changeable, could be made both complete and consistent.  Godel's theorem,
as far as I can recall, is based on stuff like:  If this statement is
true, it doesn't belong in the rules.  I don't see why there has to be any
statements like this in Acka unless we want them, we can simply make a
proposal that changes the statement to:  If this statement is true, it
belongs in the rules.  Lets face it, the rules of Acka are neither true
nor false, valid nor invalid, unless we declare them to be, and thus I
just don't think that Godel's theorem applies.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:27:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Ok, perhaps my response was too short!
> > 
> > This is the real question:
> > 
> > How can you create a (sufficiently complex) formal system which is NOT
> > self-referential?
> 	Sufficiently complex for what?
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

Complex enought o do or describe something interesting... or even
something not interesting.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 13:49:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

> Complex enought o do or describe something interesting... or even
> something not interesting.
	Okay.  Imagine a system in which there is a hierarchy of 
objects.  Objects on the lowest level are simple mathematical tools-- 
integers, real numbers, functions, etc.  Objects on the level above that 
are those that describe the relationship among objects on the lowest 
level.  For example, 1+1=2 is a second-level object.  So, I suppose, 
would be sin(x)^2 + cos(x)^2 = 1.
	Objects on the third level describe the relationship among 
objects on the second level and below.  So if a particular model uses 
only second-level equationsand so forth (which isn't too unlikely), you 
could then talk about it, but you'd be on the third level.  If I wanted 
to talk about your talking about it, I'd be on the fourth level.  And so 
on ad infinitum.
	However, the system could not talk about itself, because what 
level would such discussion be on?  Quirky... but I guess it could work.

	Such a system "gets around" at least one proof of Godel's theorem
I've seen due to the fact that that proof requires the "formal system" to
have the operation of set negation.  The hierarchical system described
above doesn't have such an operation, IMO, because there is no level on
which you can perform it...
	Intuitively I feel that the system would get around Godel's 
theorem entirely but I don't know.  It also has no way to express the "I 
am lying" paradox.  A statement can't talk about itself.

	Maybe the system can't describe *everything* interesting, but 
there are a wide range of problems it can deal with pretty well.
	There was a flash in my mind about a computer that writes its own
code... if, strictly speaking, it is not self-modifying but rather
generates lower-level programs that then generate custom-made lower-level
programs and so on, is that system self-referential?  Does it fall to
Godel? 

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:57:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  mad?

Is there not some sort of monster being built around here?  I found a nifty
little part in my Ack yard that I'd like to get rid of.  Perhaps there is
some dangerous little man with grandiose schemes who might want it... 

- -- Mohammed
*Reputable* Scientist

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 15:56:39 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG 

>this, I suppose.  So lets pretend that we weren't going to allow anymore
>CFJs, and that game custom doesn't exist.  See, that wasn't too hard,
>now was it?  Then we have what could reasonably be called a complete
>system, it describes everything that is possible in the Acka universe.

It is not a complete system. The Acka rules are far more vague than a
mathematical system, hence CFJs are required (they are, in fact, part of the
rules, so to discard them is to alter the rule set). You cannot separate
game custom from Acka w/o making Acka unbearably simple.

>Is
>it inconsistent?  Probably, but I don't think necessarily.  If we stopped
>writing new rules, and concentrated on patching holes in what we have
>already, I think that the rules of Acka, being entirely manmade and
>changeable, could be made both complete and consistent.

If it is sufficiently complex, Godel's Theorem would state that we cannot
prove it is consistent using it's own rules -- if we proved it's consistent
using our rules, then we still have yet to prove that our rules are consistent.

>I just don't think that Godel's theorem applies.

It's arguable, but consider how many CFJs are called with the statement "The
game state cannot be determined with finality" or "The current game state is
unknowable"... That sort of thing is similar to what we are talking about.
There are things in Acka that cannot be proven to be true or false. Or, at
least, we seem to think there are. Most of the time we're wrong, or we just
alter game custom (by judging the CFJ) to make it provable.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  mad?

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Is there not some sort of monster being built around here?  I found a nifty
> little part in my Ack yard that I'd like to get rid of.  Perhaps there is
> some dangerous little man with grandiose schemes who might want it... 
> 
> -- Mohammed
> *Reputable* Scientist
> 

Bwah-ha-ha!

Zee rumors are true!

Stinky is being built deep beneath FahnkeeTown!

IB
Mad Scientist

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:44:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM's and other BWG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Complex enought o do or describe something interesting... or even
> > something not interesting.
> 	Okay.  Imagine a system in which there is a hierarchy of 
> objects.  Objects on the lowest level are simple mathematical tools-- 
> integers, real numbers, functions, etc.  Objects on the level above that 

And these "functions", they don't act on any other members of the same
set?  The idea that you can extract the ability of a system to refer to
itself and still have something worthwhile is abhorrent, even on a little
thought.  (Not that I believe you aren't thinking! ;))

IB

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:17:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM&BwG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Matt Miller wrote:
> And these "functions", they don't act on any other members of the same
> set?  The idea that you can extract the ability of a system to refer to
> itself and still have something worthwhile is abhorrent, even on a little
> thought.  (Not that I believe you aren't thinking! ;))
	You can throw functions on level 2, operators on level 3, and so 
on.  No worries.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:33:19 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 370 (fnord)

More BWW :-)

Malenkai wrote:
> > Suppose that the universe runs according to fundamental laws, and
> > that scientists are trying to discover what these laws are.
> 
> Stop right there!  :)  My position is that those laws exist whether
> us clueless mortals have figured them out or not.  If incorrect
> approximations of those laws are useful, or if laws that happen to
> fit the data du jour work, that's fine, but it doesn't necessarily
> make our description of the physical world (game state) correct.
> If we can *never* prove those laws exist or prove their correctness,
> tough tomatoes, that doesn't bother me at all (of course, natural 
> curiousity will make sure we keep trying).  

This is it. I'm saying that we can never get there, because we can
never prove that we've got there, so they might as well not be there.
I think the two positions produce exactly the same results 99.9% of
the time, except perhaps for differences in terminology. There's one
other thing I didn't mention, my favourite conclusion of the
pragmatic position:

If truth is not founded on some objective accuracy, what is it? The
philosopher Bruno Latour (probably among others) describes it as the
majority view. In the scientific case, it would be the majority of
scientists working in a given field who would decide upon the truth
of theories within that field. So just as theories change over time,
truth changes over time! Of course, the Platonist version would be
that our perception of truth changes over time; but I think it's far
more fun to say that truth is changing :)

> > there is no omnipotent game-show host in the sky to give us a
> > cuddly toy if we get it right. 
> 
> That seems a bit dogmatic :).  There of course doesn't need to be
> for there to exist a set of Platonic laws that make everything tick.

Funnily enough, although it's impossible to prove that there is no
God, the principle of Occam's razor is the closest thing to managing
it. Of course, Occam's razor is a useful principle, not proof :)

> Having had this debate many times under the influence of many sorts of
> beverages, I have found that it has always boiled down to an argument of
> faith.  However, in one such instance of perhaps more such beverages than
> recommended, I discovered much to my delight that the objective-Platonic
> premise is self-validating, whereas the subjective-pragmatic premise 
> leads to a self-invalidating argument.  Of course, I'll have to lead that
> to the reader to discover for themself, given that I don't remember how
> that argument goes, and probably will not be able to reconstruct it without
> a bit more thought.

Was it anything like this?

If truth is subjective, not objective, then given that the majority
of people are objective-Platonists (even if they wouldn't put it
quite like that :)) and say they are right, how can the subjective
version of truth be true, since the subjectivists say that the
majority are right?

And my reply is that I don't care if I am wrong, given that I have
cunningly redefined truth to be the majority view; I will quite
happily apply my own subjective test of usefulness to my ideas. Of
course, generally speaking, I hope that I can persuade other people
that I am right, or that other people will decide that my ideas are
right; I rarely bother to try to persuade everyone of the virtues of
subjective-pragmatism however, since most people think it's a rather
boring topic down the boozer. My mates generally like to talk about
the bird over there with big tits :) [Or should that be :( ?]

> Malenkai
> more BWG

Bascule
Proud to BWG

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: TM& NSBwG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Matt Miller wrote:
> > And these "functions", they don't act on any other members of the same
> > set?  The idea that you can extract the ability of a system to refer to
> > itself and still have something worthwhile is abhorrent, even on a little
> > thought.  (Not that I believe you aren't thinking! ;))
> 	You can throw functions on level 2, operators on level 3, and so 
> on.  No worries.
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

Ok, then on level 1 we don't have a formal system?  And on level 2, where
the functions are.. these functions can't act on each other?  This system
is NO fun! :)

IB
not investing the time to codify the self reference just yet

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 19:35:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

> Ok, then on level 1 we don't have a formal system? 
	I don't know what your definition of "formal" is.

> And on level 2, where the functions are.. these functions can't act on each
> other?  This system is NO fun! :)
	It's at least as "fun" as C, which is this type of system. 
(Variables and memory are on the first level, code is on the second level,
and there's really nothing else to speak of.  Manuals on how to program C 
are on the 3rd or 4th level, I guess.)
	If you're referring to stuff like f(g(x)), well, the value of g(x) is
not on the same level as g itself.  suppose g(x)=sin(x).  Then g(pi) is 0. 
pi is on level 1, and 0 is on level 1.  f can still be on level 2 (f and g
are on the same level.)
	To do the same operation symbolically requires another level, I
think.  f(g(x)) can be written (f . g) (x) where the "." operator is on level
3 if f and g are on level 2.  This allows both (f . g) and (g . f) ... the
actual object (f . g) is a level-2 object (produced by the level 3 tool
".").

	In python it's possible to

	map(map, [sin, cos, tan], [ [0, pi/2, pi],
				    [0, pi/2, pi],
				    [0, pi/2, pi] ] )

but I don't know if that constitutes self-reference (philosophically 
speaking) or not.

Some things just don't fit on the hierarchy because it feels like they 
should be higher-level than everything else.  I wonder if inductive 
proofs would work in this system.  I haven't thought about it hard 
enough..

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:42:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 	If you're referring to stuff like f(g(x)), well, the value of g(x) is
> not on the same level as g itself.  suppose g(x)=sin(x).  Then g(pi) is 0. 
> pi is on level 1, and 0 is on level 1.  f can still be on level 2 (f and g
> are on the same level.)

We're really getting off the track of where I thought you were going with
this.  Are you just making up these levels as you go?  Why are pi and 0 on
two different levels?  What is g(g(x))?

IB

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:46:45 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PsuedoDuel 

Habeous Corpus,

You stand challenged by Robert Sevin.  Be afraid, be very afraid.  You
cannot hide by not being a player.  You cannot hide by not registering.
Habeous Corpus, Robert Sevin has challenged you to a PsuedoDuel because you
had the gall to utter

" Thanks to Doug Chatham for finding this lunatic fringe for me,  it was
better than Harf."

As we all know, nothing is better than Harf.  Prepare to be vanquished.

snowgod
unofficial second to Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:51:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party On! 

>What happened at the party hall party?
>
>Malenkai

THough i'm not a swinger, no one informed me of any messages.  I fear I
shall have to write anoter poem and continue the tradition of dreadful
Gaoler poetry.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:53:51 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: name change 

>I am hereby changing my Ackanomic name.  My current name
>is FiBOnacCi, my new name will be ThinMan, and my real name
>is John Bollinger.  The reason for the change, though I am
>no longer required to supply one, is that the name FiBOnacCi
>has outlived its usefulness, and is hard to spell to boot.
>
>FiBOnacCi
>soon to be ThinMan again

Can I refuse this name change :)

Oh well, FiBOnacCi is ThinMan again.

snowgod
or am i thae Panache of Uestiox?

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

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 22:02:47 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Oh oh oh, staying alive... 

You know, it's absolute HELL getting in late on a discussion of the sort
that's raging around here. I know ZERO about Turing machines (more's the
pity), and I'm gamely wading through my "Ackanomic" mailbox trying to keep
up. Not easy, friends, Romans, and countrymen!

Anyway, I'm renaming my house to You can reach me Here.

You can call...ahh, you now the drill.

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

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 22:09:58 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Retraction 

BLAST! I hereby retract Proposal 1911 for technical reasons. I'll resubmit
momentarily (big deal).

Call me
                                     __________
                                    /          \
                                   /            \
                                  |   o     o    |
                                  |    |   |     |
                             ----------|   |----------
                             -----------\_/-----------
                           [email-masked]
                             -------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 22:09:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: TM& NSBwG

> > 	If you're referring to stuff like f(g(x)), well, the value of g(x) is
> > not on the same level as g itself.  suppose g(x)=sin(x).  Then g(pi) is 0. 
> > pi is on level 1, and 0 is on level 1.  f can still be on level 2 (f and g
> > are on the same level.)
> 
> We're really getting off the track of where I thought you were going with
> this.  Are you just making up these levels as you go?  Why are pi and 0 on
> two different levels?  What is g(g(x))?
	Yes, I'm making up the levels as I go.  But they only changed once. :o)
	pi and 0 are not on two different levels.
	g(g(x)) is (g . g)(x)
	Or (g^2)(x) if you prefer it.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:42:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Several Things (TMBG, Web-Harfing, etc) 

>	If you have, I haven't gotten the mail.

I do remember you replying to at least one message I sent you. This was a
while back, but then my sense of time goes to hell once a semester starts.

>  As far as problems with 
>the shell are concerned, it would be rather... let's say "ambitious" of 
>me to say that the problems are not with my code for the bot but with 
>python.

Blame the unix you are running under. Unix can always be blamed. It was
created by programers to have something to blame for bugs.

If you aren't running it under Unix then that's your problem right there.   ; )

>	Calvin's vote doesn't count because I distributed his proposal 
>illegally the first time.

Never argued it did. I don't think. I only explained why I didn't get my
vote recorded on it.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:52:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Several Things (TMBG, Web-Harfing, etc)

> I do remember you replying to at least one message I sent you. This was a
> while back, but then my sense of time goes to hell once a semester starts.
	Wow, so does mine.  I don't remember responding at all, but given 
the volume of mail here, it's no wonder.  Sorry 'bout that.
	Anyway, if there are problems now it's often because there 
was a rule change I didn't notice.  I just fixed tammany to accept small 
bribes.  If anyone tried to bribe tammany and got an error message from 
the bot, I suggest you try it again before the results go out.  The bot 
has seen the light.  :o)

> Blame the unix you are running under. Unix can always be blamed. It was
> created by programers to have something to blame for bugs.
	*grin*  This goes double for DEC...

> >	Calvin's vote doesn't count because I distributed his proposal 
> >illegally the first time.
> Never argued it did. I don't think. I only explained why I didn't get my
> vote recorded on it.
	Agreed; I just wanted to quell any fears of.. er, 
Platonic/accepted game state discrepancies.  Or whatever.  :o)

- -- Mohammed

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #41
******************************