Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #320
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, September 15 1998      Volume 03 : Number 320

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Robert Sevin)

At 10:24 PM 9/14/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I can't tell etiquette from shinola, personally (*spit*).  But I'd say
>there's a fair amount of game custom that supports arbitrary judgements. I
>can't really recall any recently, but surely a Slumbering Giant such as
>yourself can remember the days when CFJs would come back with reasoning
>like: I'm judging this TRUE because I'm pretty sure that it is, but I have
>a saxophone recital this weekend so I couldn't really check.  So anyway,
>enjoy.
>
>Somewhere along the line, people must have decided to take them seriously.
>Ah well, at least I can remenisce.

I remember the days when we didn't really know what a CFJ meant, we just
called CFJs and hoped they would help sort things out.

I can even remember when harf wasn't a part of the game. Very scary.

Why, back in the day, I remember...

Harf,
Robert Sevin
"When someone says `Society has a desperate need for bug-free software', my
first thought is `Well, the residents of Hell need icewater.  That doesn't
mean they're gonna get it'.  Maybe that's why I'm not in marketing."
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/index.html>
Support the Harf Project: <http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/harfproj.html>
All your questions answered, all your problems solved:
<http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mitch/ask820/ask820.html> 

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

If I am on the CFJ ineliability list (which I think I may have been put on
as a newbie) I'd like to be taken off.

Fo said:
>I'd rather say that, unless the rules directly imply otherwise,
>mathematical truth in reality works in Ackanomic.  Otherwise it would just
>do everyone's head in.
>

Here's my two unspecified units of acka currency:

The idea of mathematical truth IN REALITY is a slippery and perhaps
untenable concept.

I would say that clearly, the axiomatic system (or formal system, if you
prefer) which could be described as "advanced university math" includes the
presupossition that an angle without a specified unit is said to be in
radians.

I would also say that the distinct axiomatic system which I refer to as
"AckaMath" clearly includes statements like (1/0)=0, and has many
propoerties currently unknown to any of us.

I would furhter say that a wide variety of axiomatic systems could be
created in the minds of people that borrowed the idea of angles and dealt
with them in different ways than we would think were not "intuitive" but
would seem upon examination to be consistent.

I don't think that an axiomatic system developed by people could be
considered to exist with a greater force than those systems described above
to the degree that it existed "IN REALITY".

Moreover, Godel (imagine the dots over the "o" :)  probably indicates that
even "advanced university math" might contain inconsistencies.  No system
should be "defaulted" to as "real." The system we determine to use in Acka
should be chosen for reasons important to Acka.

Among the values I think we should look for, is that of easily
communication in normal Acka discourse. A system which lets units go
unspecified seems dangerous to me for precisely the reason that it may
become crucial later and should not be left to "default assumptions."

By this reasoning, I conclude that the hat should not necessarily be
considered to specify an angle in radians. Radians were not specified so
radians are not the default. (Perhaps this is a lesson to all of us: be
clear in the future.)

I think, morover that when Slakko said:

>Well, unless you can prove that, if division by zero gives
>zero, e^(90i) equals 1, then it shouldn't be degrees either.
>
>e^(ix) = sin x.  That's the _number_ x.
>Either prove that this works differently when division by 
>zero results in zero, or accept it as the actual result, in
>which case the sine of a googolplex is equal to the sine of 
>a googolplex radians.

He was implying that there were two choices available to us: Acka math or
university math and if we were to use AckaMath we needed to show how
sin(10^10^100) (of unspecified unit)would turn out differently in either
system.

I question first the necessity of limiting ourselves to only two options.
Second I question whether this test is in ANY way meaningful due to the
fact that NEITHER of these systems seem capable of giving an answer to
compare against the system.

Up till now, I've written primarily to set a strong foundation for a very
open, pragmatic, mind with regard to this question.

I think a system which gives answers is preferable to one which doesn't.

MTM put it very well:

>If I were to ask someone what time it was and they replied 
>"twelve" then I would no that they actually meant twelve 
>O'Clock; twelve hours into the day. I would know this even 
>though I was not explicitly told it. They could have meant 
>twleve seconds into the day, or twelve minutes to eleven 
>O'Clock. The reason that I would know it was twelve O'Clock
>was that the other possibilities simply don't make sense. 
>Going back to your example of driving to work, maybe we 
>wouldn't know what unit you meant but we would certainly 
>know that you didn't mean nanometres or light years since 
>either of those would be absurd. You could not possibly drive
>either of those distances.

I don't think Fo would advocate absurdity whatever Acka choose to use as
its formal system of choice.  I think that systems which give answers, are
fairly consistent (with maybe a little harf for fun), and where terms less
than fully specified can still be used are best.

Degrees or Grads.  I think that either system provides Acka with the
least-absurd, most useful interpretation and that these principles and
systems should be used. 

Thus, I believe the agenda hat is TRUE by a reasonable, ackan
interpretation which uses logic, usefulness, and the presence of a little
harf.

Studge

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: A new voice in politics

Piz wrote:
>Studge wrote:
>:I announce my intent to form an organization which is a political party
>:with the name "Giant Objectionable Potato" it may also be referred to as
>:the GOP.
>:
>:It has standard admission policies as per Rule 007 Admissions Policies
>:("the organization may accept new members as an organizational action.")
>:
>:If you want to join, reply with the phrase "I too appreciate the  potatoes
>:of yore."
>:
>:Studge, pseudo-Founder of the GOP.
>
>I remember, decades ago, before there were goats filling the skies every
>evening, sitting around the yawning chasm, drinking vodka (Oh, Essence of
>Potato!) and sharing stories of Chips, Fries, and Skins. Next, as ritual
>demanded, we would all strip off our clothes, point at the bulgy parts of
>each other's bodies, and dance in an extreme circular manner, whirling and
>whirling until we could no longer remember our own names. Exhausted, all
>would form a greasy pile, like naked mole rats in spring under a heat lamp,
>and languidly suck starch until the fiery dawn.
>
>I too appreciate the potatoes of yore.
>
>Piz

An elegy worthy of potatos if ever there was one.

Would that my heart were less pragmatic.  Unfortunately, when examining
your voting record I find that it is unlikely that without planning all the
various votes would align.  For this state of affairs I am truly sorry.

I create a triket with the name "Yam #3" out of 1A$ with the description "I
ALMOST became part of the Giant Objectionable Potato and all I got was this
lousy yam."

I gift the trinket Yam #3 to Piz.

Studge

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:17:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (I am the Water Boatman)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

>Statement:  
>Weishaupt has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle.

I'm happy to accept the responsibility of judging this, but I need a bit more
information before I am able to do so, which may require me to submit a CFJ of
my own.

>8. The owner of this hat is the Overlord of the owner of this eggplant.
>Weight: 110
>
>Studge owns this eggplant. I am the Overlord of Studge

I hadn't got around to bringing the matter up yet, but as soon as Weishaupt
attempted to purchase Studge's thrall (cost A$250) I checked on the P/E page
and saw that e only had A$5. Now, either K 2 was extremely prompt in updating
the page, or Weishaupt didn't have enough A$ to perform that action.

Aside from that, there's the question of whether or not eir answer to the
little mathematical problem is satisfactory to fulfil the agenda condition. I'm
not a mathematician (not by any stretch of the imnagination) so I require some
guidance on that to help me make my decision. But, as I say, if e didn't have
enough money to purchase Studge's thrall, then that is academic anyway.

Ethelred

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:22:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, I am the Water Boatman wrote:
>>Statement:  
>>Weishaupt has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle.
>
>I'm happy to accept the responsibility of judging this, but I need a bit more
>information before I am able to do so, which may require me to submit a CFJ of
>my own.
>
>>8. The owner of this hat is the Overlord of the owner of this eggplant.
>>Weight: 110
>>
>>Studge owns this eggplant. I am the Overlord of Studge
>
>I hadn't got around to bringing the matter up yet, but as soon as Weishaupt
>attempted to purchase Studge's thrall (cost A$250) I checked on the P/E page
>and saw that e only had A$5. Now, either K 2 was extremely prompt in updating
>the page, or Weishaupt didn't have enough A$ to perform that action.

Studge gave Weishaupt A$245 last evening.
I believe K2 just has not (or had not) updated the page as of when you
checked.

>Aside from that, there's the question of whether or not eir answer to the
>little mathematical problem is satisfactory to fulfil the agenda condition. I'm
>not a mathematician (not by any stretch of the imnagination) so I require some
>guidance on that to help me make my decision. But, as I say, if e didn't have
>enough money to purchase Studge's thrall, then that is academic anyway.

This one I leave completely in your court :)

- --JT

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swingpoints

Swingpoints awarded for the Fortnight ending 14th September 1998:

1. Chess Weight Swingpoints

8: Niccolo
7: /dev/joe
6: JT
5: Slakko
4: Rex Mundi
3: Robin Hood
3: Mr. Tambourine Man

2. Party Swingpoints:

1: ThinMan
1: Vynd

3. FairPlay Swingpoints:

2: /dev/joe.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:25:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

I declare Proposal 3583 Harfy.

Yours,
Fo
Harfmeister
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:33:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (I am the Water Boatman)
Subject: Re: Acka: Harf

>Under less than game-breaking circumstances, I would say sure, let it
>ride.  As it stands, however, I'd rather see a retraction.  Not that I
>really think it will pass (famous last words....)

I retract Proposal 3570.

Ethelred

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

>>>Statement:  
>>>Weishaupt has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle.
>>
>>I'm happy to accept the responsibility of judging this, but I need a bit
more
>>information before I am able to do so, which may require me to submit a
CFJ of
>>my own.
>>
>>>8. The owner of this hat is the Overlord of the owner of this eggplant.
>>>Weight: 110
>>>
>>>Studge owns this eggplant. I am the Overlord of Studge
>>
>>I hadn't got around to bringing the matter up yet, but as soon as Weishaupt
>>attempted to purchase Studge's thrall (cost A$250) I checked on the P/E page
>>and saw that e only had A$5. Now, either K 2 was extremely prompt in
updating
>>the page, or Weishaupt didn't have enough A$ to perform that action.
>
>Studge gave Weishaupt A$245 last evening.
>I believe K2 just has not (or had not) updated the page as of when you
>checked.
>

JT is correct.

>>Aside from that, there's the question of whether or not eir answer to the
>>little mathematical problem is satisfactory to fulfil the agenda
condition. I'm
>>not a mathematician (not by any stretch of the imnagination) so I require
some
>>guidance on that to help me make my decision. But, as I say, if e didn't
have
>>enough money to purchase Studge's thrall, then that is academic anyway.
>
>This one I leave completely in your court :)
>

I can tell you - my solution is fine ;)

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:46:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (I am the Water Boatman)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

JT:

>Studge gave Weishaupt A$245 last evening.

Weishaupt:

>JT is correct.

Sorry, I missed that. So, that's that problem solved. However...

>I can tell you - my solution is fine ;)

I thought you'd say that.

Ethelred

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:52:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

>>I can tell you - my solution is fine ;)
>
>I thought you'd say that.
>
>Ethelred

perhaps you'd care to come on IRC and discuss it with me?

wilma.che.utexas.edu port 9942?

If not, then not :) 

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 04:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (I am the Water Boatman)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

>perhaps you'd care to come on IRC and discuss it with me?

I'm at work and the company firewall won't allow me access to IRC.

Ethelred

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

At 04:56 AM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>perhaps you'd care to come on IRC and discuss it with me?
>
>I'm at work and the company firewall won't allow me access to IRC.
>
>Ethelred
> 
oh well...
The gist of the argument (i'm sure you can read for yourself, why am i
telling you this?) is about units.  It is pretty much undeniable that if
the angle is measured in either degrees or grads, my answer is completely
right.  However, if in fact you decide that radians are the unit of
measurement, I would be wrong and you would want to vote false.  

I've outlined my position already, and MTM and Studge have offered some
very eloquent defense, but once again I want to stress that radians are an
unreasonable unit to use.  It is pretty much *physically* impossible to
determine the sine of a googol plex in radians, given the number of atoms
in the universe.  The Illuminatus did not replace this with a silly hat, so
e obviously felt it was not that hard.  

The easy response to that would be that I can redefine the sine function or
something similar; however, if we are sticking so much to "mathematical
fact" that we _must_ use radians, it seems contradictory to do so.

Thank you for your consideration, and remember that there's a hefty check
for A$... wait a second... i'm all out of money... never mind ;)

- --Weishaupt
  Really Weird
  Crazy French-Scotsman
  Founder of the JAM
  Member of the GOP
  Newbie
  Mad as a Hatter
  Broke
  Hoping that Ethelred has mercy

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> At 04:56 AM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >>perhaps you'd care to come on IRC and discuss it with me?
> >
> >I'm at work and the company firewall won't allow me access to IRC.
> >
> >Ethelred
> > 
> oh well...
> The gist of the argument (i'm sure you can read for yourself, why am i
> telling you this?) is about units.  It is pretty much undeniable that if
> the angle is measured in either degrees or grads, my answer is completely
> right.  However, if in fact you decide that radians are the unit of
> measurement, I would be wrong and you would want to vote false.  

It's not about which units to use.
The hat said "sine of a googolplex".
You can take the sine of a googolplex, being the sine of that number.
By definition, that gives the same result as the sine of a googolplex
radians.

Radians, grads and degrees as a unit to choose are all equally valid.  But
we are not talking about that - we don't _need_ a unit, as you _can_ take
the sine of a number.  In absence of any specified unit, the number should
be sined, and hence the answer will match that where radians are used.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:00:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: A new voice in politics

Studge wrote:
:Piz wrote:
:>Studge wrote:
:>:I announce my intent to form an organization which is a political party
:>:with the name "Giant Objectionable Potato" it may also be referred to as
:>:the GOP.
:>:
:>:It has standard admission policies as per Rule 007 Admissions Policies
:>:("the organization may accept new members as an organizational action.")
:>:
:>:If you want to join, reply with the phrase "I too appreciate the
potatoes
:>:of yore."
:>:
:>:Studge, pseudo-Founder of the GOP.
:>
:>I remember, decades ago, before there were goats filling the skies every
:>evening, sitting around the yawning chasm, drinking vodka (Oh, Essence of
:>Potato!) and sharing stories of Chips, Fries, and Skins. Next, as ritual
:>demanded, we would all strip off our clothes, point at the bulgy parts of
:>each other's bodies, and dance in an extreme circular manner, whirling and
:>whirling until we could no longer remember our own names. Exhausted, all
:>would form a greasy pile, like naked mole rats in spring under a heat
lamp,
:>and languidly suck starch until the fiery dawn.
:>
:>I too appreciate the potatoes of yore.
:
:An elegy worthy of potatos if ever there was one.

I bow in your general direction.

:Would that my heart were less pragmatic.  Unfortunately, when examining
:your voting record I find that it is unlikely that without planning all the
:various votes would align.  For this state of affairs I am truly sorry.
:
:I create a triket with the name "Yam #3" out of 1A$ with the description "I
:ALMOST became part of the Giant Objectionable Potato and all I got was this
:lousy yam."
:
:I gift the trinket Yam #3 to Piz.

Oo, thanks. Here I sit, finally beginning to get a clue as to how all this
harf works, and my first real foray into a larger participation gets me...a
yam. Wow. I don't even *like* yams (well, I like french fried sweet
potatoes, but that's not quite the same, is it?).

I destroy Trinket "Yam #3" by mashing it with a little butter and milk. I
create a Trinket with the name "Pierogie," a value of A$1, and the following
TOT-delimited description:

TOT
It's a dough shell filled with a paste consisting of mashed yam with a
little butter and milk, which has been deep-fried until it is almost black.

I remember, decades ago, before there were goats filling the skies every
evening, sitting around the yawning chasm, drinking vodka (Oh, Essence of
Potato!) and sharing stories of Chips, Fries, and Skins. Next, as ritual
demanded, we would all strip off our clothes, point at the bulgy parts of
each other's bodies, and dance in an extreme circular manner, whirling and
whirling until we could no longer remember our own names. Exhausted, all
would form a greasy pile, like naked mole rats in spring under a heat lamp,
and languidly suck starch until the fiery dawn.

I used to appreciate the potatoes of yore. But they're overcooked.
TOT

I gift the Trinket "Pierogie" to Studge.

Piz ;-)

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:43:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, not much

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I don't buy this either. The whole idea behind mathematics is that you start with a
> few apparently self evident axioms and then build the rest of the system around it.

Ermmm, no.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Email addresses.

How does the group feel about having an ambassador address of
"[email-masked]"?  Tht way when the office is passed around,
it's not necessary to inform all the other nomics of the change.  

Maybe this makes sense for other offices as well?  CotC springs to mind.

Oh yeah, another call for you to submit your desired ackanomic.org
address.  (THe machine which hosts this domain has bitten the big one a
couple times in the past couple days, so don't be in a hurry.)

Yes, I'm trying to justify the extra $30-
IB 

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

>> The gist of the argument (i'm sure you can read for yourself, why am i
>> telling you this?) is about units.  It is pretty much undeniable that if
>> the angle is measured in either degrees or grads, my answer is completely
>> right.  However, if in fact you decide that radians are the unit of
>> measurement, I would be wrong and you would want to vote false.  
>
>It's not about which units to use.
>The hat said "sine of a googolplex".
>You can take the sine of a googolplex, being the sine of that number.
>By definition, that gives the same result as the sine of a googolplex
>radians.
>
>Radians, grads and degrees as a unit to choose are all equally valid.  But
>we are not talking about that - we don't _need_ a unit, as you _can_ take
>the sine of a number.  In absence of any specified unit, the number should
>be sined, and hence the answer will match that where radians are used.
>
This is a mathematician's idea of sine.  Maybe for someone who works
exclusively with math, that's all that matters.  But most if not all
practical applications of the trig functions will involve angles.  In
almost any other field, you'll find that a trig function involves an angle.
 Physics, Chemistry... Now that i stop and think about it (and this may
just be getting me into trouble) I can't think of any field other than
mathematics where you would *ever* take the sine of a number.  The trig
functions intuitively apply to an angle, and unless you want to judge that
acka is bound exclusively to higher-level math, I would *not* rule that
this implies no units.  Radians I would disagree with, but i'd live with;
no units would be just about unbearable.

- --Weishaupt
  Late for class already

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:41:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 161

 If there is an entry in the literature list reading (WW-delimited)
WW
Work: The Bible, Old and New Testaments
WW
 remove it.

 Add to the literature list:

Work: The King James Version of the Bible, any books therin that exist.
Work: The Revised English Version of the Bible, any books therin that exist.

{{[KJV is the "traditional" ye olde version of the Book, REB is a pretty
good modern translation.]}}

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:43:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

I realized I had time for another quick reply, so here goes.  To allow a
field (such as mathematics) to dominate Acka just creates all kinds of
problems.  If we take the mathematical meaning as the only allowable one,
the words "divergence" "curl" "derivative" "integral" and so on mean
something entirely different from the standard linguistic interpretation
that they are meant to adhere to.  Yes, there is *some* meaning to these
terms in mathematics, but applying it to acka is just wrong.  

Why math?  Just because most of the acka players are materialists
(apologies to those who are not, if they are offended) and believe that
math is fundamental?  That reasoning would imply that any players' personal
belief should define the rules.  If I were a theologian (sp?) I might say
that the Bible defines pi to be 3 (making this calculation much easier),
and, within my self-consistent Biblical framework, I would be correct.  

To use the mathematical definition of sine as opposed to the "math-ish"
layman's definition is a mistake, in my opinion.  Everyone is taught first
(in lower math, in trig) that trig functions are defined in terms of
angles.  This is the intuitive, commonly understood definition of the sine
function, and, as such, should be taken as more applicable than Fo's pure
math definition.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:48:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stuff

 I remove my proxy from SPAM.

 I offer to trade all trinkets I currently own with the word "traffic" in
them for one Swingpoint.

 Wild Card.

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 161

At 10:41 AM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
> If there is an entry in the literature list reading (WW-delimited)
>WW
>Work: The Bible, Old and New Testaments
>WW
> remove it.
>
> Add to the literature list:
>
>Work: The King James Version of the Bible, any books therin that exist.
>Work: The Revised English Version of the Bible, any books therin that exist.
>
>{{[KJV is the "traditional" ye olde version of the Book, REB is a pretty
>good modern translation.]}}

I object, sorry.  I think that it's a terrible idea to limit us to those
translations as literature.  Further, it's discriminatory; those Bibles
will generally be the Bibles of Protestant denominations; Catholics and
Jews (nd maybe Orthodox, i'm not sure) use their own translations which
should be considered as valid.  Further, these two translations aren't even
definitive Protestant Bibles.  What about all the other modern
translations?  The New American Standard is pretty good, in my opinion.
But I wouldn't limit it to just the NAS.  I think that it's a bad idea to
limit the Bible (at least) like this.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:52:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 665 (Ethelred)

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> At 04:56 AM 9/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >Ethelred
> 
> I've outlined my position already, and MTM and Studge have offered some
> very eloquent defense, but once again I want to stress that radians are an
> unreasonable unit to use.  It is pretty much *physically* impossible to
> determine the sine of a googol plex in radians, given the number of atoms
> in the universe.  The Illuminatus did not replace this with a silly hat, so
> e obviously felt it was not that hard.  
> 

I received excellent grades in Calculus back in high school, and ahve
since forgotten absolutely everything I learned.  So I'm going to say
absolutely nothing about the mathematics involved in this.

I must point out, however, that "reasonability" is not generally a vaild
argument in Acka. True, the Illuminatus is supposed to replace impossible
agenda hats with silly ones.  But you can't take that fact and mount a
credible case that because the condition wasn't replaced, the condition
must be achievable, and thus must not require the use of radians (which
may or may not be true, so far as I know).  If the condition is impossible
to achieve, that just means the Illuminatus screwed up.  End of story.
There have been many agenda hats in the past that could not, so far as I
could tell, be achieved under then current rules.  In some cases, the
rules have actually been changed so much that they might now be possible.

Basically what I am trying to say to the judge is: the only important
thing here is what the agenda condition says.  Impossible or no, the
condition must be fulfullied for the hat to have been true.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grey Wild Times

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 GGG RRR  EEEE Y Y      W   W III L    DDD      TTTTT III M   M EEEE  SSS
G    R  R E    Y Y      W   W  I  L    D  D       T    I  MM MM E    S
G GG RRR  EEE  YYY      W W W  I  L    D  D       T    I  M M M EEE   SSS
G  G R R  E     Y       WW WW  I  L    D  D       T    I  M   M E        S
 GGG R  R EEEE  Y       W   W III LLLL DDD        T   III M   M EEEE  SSS
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1998                   Issue: I                   A$1 where sold
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We are the Grey, We stand between the light and the dark.

This  newspaper has been  formed as    This  situation us, as the entirity
an   information  conduit   on  the    of Ackan life, under review; with a
actions  of the  Grey Council;  but    proposal  in  queue to  extend  the
given  the inherant interlinkedness    Unity  Vote to the Council - albeit
of  Ackanomic events  other stories    in  a more limited manner than with
may well creep into it.                the Political Parties.

The  Grey Council has  but recently    It   is  also  quite  likely  that,
been  formed, and it's Seats filled    should the project to translate the
- -  the election  process displaying    works  of  Valen be  ratified,  the
an  anomaly in  the Ackan  election    pages  of  said book  will  contain
scheme;  namely that  regardless of    information  pertanent to  the Grey
the  number of  seats to  be filled    Council.    This project  has  been
each  voter may  only vote  for one    suggested   as  a  result   of  the
candidate. Some would say that this    revelation   by   Phoebe   that   a
is,   at   best,   an   unfortunate    disaster is descending upon us, and
perculiarity, others that it is, in    I  for one quite definitely support
some  sense, denying  the franchise    the  motion.    LATEST  NEWS:  This
to the voters.                         proposal  despite being  voted down
                                       recently is going to be resubmitted
                                       once the viewpoint of the Naysayers
As  yet however, the Council has no    has  been  elicited.    This  could
duties, or priviliges - beyond it=EBs    still  have a  major impact  on th=
e
members  being known as Councilers.    Grey Council.

          Rumours spread about clandestine Grey Council actions.

There  have been suggestions within    upon the appearance of his ghost.
the    pages   of   certain   other
newspapers  that  the  Council  may    This,  after dint  of much  careful
have  been  involved  with  certain    study,   would  appear   to  be   a
oddities     that   have    occured    manifestation   of  a   morphogenic
recently.    Whilst the  editor  is    field   caused  by  an  uncompleted
completely     baffled    by    the    intention.   Or in other words - he
non-existance     of   a    certain    had  certain things that  needed to
proposal;  and finds the actions of    be done, and they were so important
Koxvolio somewhat puzzling; he does    within  his mind  that they  caused
believe that he can shed some light    his ghost to manifest.

  Grey Wild Times is published by Wild Card, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.

     Copyright 1998 J.D.Amery writing under the pseudonym Wild Card.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Lestas... Guillermo Lestas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I´m sorry

For more than 21 days i, Memo, had fun discovering the amezing
Ackaworld. Yet, i a simple student cannot continue on your rythm.
i have no time or disk space to fully be an ackaplayer. That are the
reasons why i need to exit Ackanomic. I enjoyed a lot ven though i had
not the opportunity to make a proposal. Thanks for all. Maybe one day
i will be ready for Ackanomic.

Memo

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 655 (TRUE)

JT has judged this TRUE.

Call for Judgement 655 - September 4, 1998
Subject: Voting Eligibility
Initiator: breadbox (sent Sep 4 1998, 12:02 Acka)
1st Judge: Rig R. Mortis (chosen Sep 4 1998, 12:29 Acka) (declined)
2nd Judge: two-star (chosen Sep 7 1998, 08:06 Acka) (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: JT (chosen Sep 14 1998, 12:46 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

breadbox is eligible to vote on proposals.

Reasoning:

If my other CFJ is ruled False, then this CFJ must almost certainly be
True. So, assuming the truth of the statement "There is no Current
Government of Ackanomia", where does that leave me?

Rule 106 only states how the players that are eligible to vote on
proposals may do so. (Though note that Voting Players are specifically
permitted to abstain.) And who is eligible to vote? It is nowhere
specified in the rules. Rule 320 specifies no provisions for the
situation when there is no Current Government and Anarchy is not an
existing Government Type.

The fact that I was eligible to vote before Proposal 3495 was adopted
doesn't help. Suffrage is not an entity; it is not guaranteed to
continue existing when the rules that granted it are removed.

Nor can we fall back on "permissibility of the unprohibited", since
the right to vote is clearly still regulated by Rule 106.

The only conclusion I can come to is that no players have been granted
the ability to vote on proposals at this time.

Judge's Reasoning:

As Breadnbox stated in his reasoning, if CFJ654 is FALSE, then this
is certainly TRUE.
Therefore I only need to concern myself with what happens if CFJ654 is
ruled TRUE.

If CFJ654 is ruled true, then there is (or was at the time) no current
government of ackanomic.

In the original proposal (which is what was in effect at the time this
CFj was submitted), we find the following text

>If no Government Type is Active then the Government Type Anarchy (if it
>exists) becomes Active.

This certainly allows no government type to exist since by the assumption
of CFJ654 being ruled true, there could have been no government type of
Anarchy.

Looking down further
>Governmental Rules should specify who is eligible to vote on proposals
>(if it fails then all active voting players may vote)...

This could be read that if a government rule fails to specify who may vote
then all active voting players may vote.

It is certainly true that if there is no government, then the rules for
the current government type (none) fail to specify who may vote, and
therefore all active voting players may indeed vote.

Therefore breadbox in particular is elegible vote.

and therefore, the statement in this CFJ is TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 660 (TRUE)

Wild Card has judged this TRUE without reasoning.

Call for Judgement 660 - September 11, 1998
Subject: Burying Potato
Initiator: Piz (sent Sep 11 1998, 09:15 Acka)
Judge: Wild Card (chosen Sep 11 1998, 11:33 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement: 
It is legal for the Magic Potato to constitute part of a Treasure.

Reasoning:

The Magic Potato is a non-tradable entity, because its tradability status is
not explicitly defined in the Rules (Rule 901), and in such a case an entity
is non-tradable by default (Rule 500.2).

Rule 1217 states:

"...the player attempting [to bury a Treasure] must state which one or more
of his tradeable entities collectively constitute the Treasure..."

Other than this phrase, there is nothing in the Rules that regulates the
contents of a Treasure. This does not expressly *limit* the contents of a
Treasure to tradable entities, although it requires that at least one
tradable entity be part of a Treasure.

Vynd's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

I disagree with the initiator's reasoning on two points.

1) I do think that Rule 1217 prohibits the burying of non-tradeable
entities. It specifically says that the tradeable entities specified by
the burier "collectively constitute the treasure." So Rule 1217 requires
the buried to specify what "collectively constitutes" the treasure, and
the only items it allows to be specified are tradeable entities.

Even if Rule 1217 does not explicitly forbid burying non-tradeable
entities, I believe that Rule 101 would still prevent such an action. Rule
101 tells us that actions described in the rules can only be made in
accordance with the rules. Burying non-tradeable entities is not in
accordance with the method described in Rule 1217, the only method
described in the rules, and thus by Rule 101 burying non-tradeable
entities is impossible.

Judge's Reasoning: 

[none]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 12:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>  I remove my proxy from SPAM.
> 
>  I offer to trade all trinkets I currently own with the word "traffic" in
> them for one Swingpoint.

Here, have a Swingpoint.
Give me all those trinkets.

Fo.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #320
*******************************