Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #336
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Sunday, September 27 1998      Volume 03 : Number 336

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 00:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3609 rejected

nomicbot wrote:
> 
> Results of Proposal 3609
> 
> 17/30 votes: Quorum achieved
> 5/16 YES votes: Proposal rejected

=From rule 102:

> Then, quorum is met if either (a) at least 60% of the 
> players in the head count have cast a vote, or (b) at least 36% 
> of the players in the head count have voted YES, or both. In no 
> other circumstances is quorum met. 

There's a flaw in the slaw somewhere.

saaremaa

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 05:48:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 668 (FALSE)

K 2 has judged this FALSE.

Call for Judgement 668 - September 24, 1998
Subject: Random Determination and Tornado
Initiator: JT (sent 24 Sep 1998, 11:59 Acka)
Judge: K 2 (selected 24 Sep 1998, 12:35 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

JT is Sheltered during the most recent Tornado.

Reasoning:

Alfvaen's post of the random determination of scores at the end of the
last Tornado contained errors, and in fact had Fo who was Sheltered having
his score changed.   Alfvaen attempted to claim that this was a typo, but
I don't see that as a valid typo (Fo is obviously spelled correctly).
Since the random determination was done incorrectly and has not been
redone, the actual Tornado has not come yet since it depends (to quote
from rule 230) on a random determination for it's full specification.

I also submit the following reasoning which I presented ad-hoc in an email
discussion with Fo over this.

>>That wouldn't matter.  Remember the kerfuffle about Gnomesday - same
>>principle applies.  The determination is based on who was not Sheltered
>>at the time of the Tornado.  Just because it changes the scores later
>>does not mean that people can move in the intervening period and change
>>whether or not they are affected.
>
>Actually this case is not quite so clear-cut to me.  The Gnomesday one,
>only a few peoples actual boon *could* have required a random
>determination.   For the Tornado, the tornado's resolution itself
>requires that random determination and thus shouldn't (according to the
>rules) have occured until the determination was publically knowable.   If
>you'll recall, I was also unsure on the Gnomesday one, and only the fact
>that some of the people required a 'secondary' determination swayed me.
>
>I think it's similar to the rafting trip (in both cases).  The trip
>doesn't actually occur until the OiCoRT determines the outcome of the
>trip (break conservation laws, daring adventurers, or whatever).   The
>daring adventurers (or the loss of a trinket) requires a secondary
>determination to see which boon is gained or trinket is lost, but by that
>point the trip has occured.
>
>Gnomesday, I think was similar to the second phase of the rafting trip in
>that, the random determination was a secondary effect of applying the
>primary effect of gnomesday (which was deterministic).   The tornado
>requires the random determination to be fully specified and thus I don't
>believe has actually occured yet since the first random determination
>contained errors.

Since the correct random determination is not publically knowable, and I
moved to the Ackanomic Afterlife (a public location which Shelters all
players in it) then I am in fact now Sheltered, and will remain so as the
random determination needs to be redone.

Judge's Reasoning:

I rule this CFJ FALSE 'cause Hey Hey It's Saturday is on TV.

As I stare at the words I just typed I realize that my reasoning won't
stand up for 3 reasons:
i) its 8:20 so Hey Hey just finished.
ii) I have no desire to watch The Footy Wards Grand Finale (which is
about to come on).
iii) I don't have a TV.

Oh well, I shall... ummm... quote some rules instead (yeah that's it
quote some rules :) :

(Rule 230; Random Events)
"
II. An event that depends on a random determination for its full
specification shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
knowable.
"

and (Rule 1313; Tornado)
"
A Tornado shall sweep though Acka at the time of the Summer Solstice,
Winter Solstice, Vernal Equinox, and Autumnal Equinox. Tornadoes are
dangerous entities.

Whenever a Tornado sweeps through Acka, all active and vacationing
players who are non-Sheltered are affected. The scores of all affected
players shall be randomly reassigned among the affected players.
...
"

It seems reasonable to interpret the second rule fragment as defining a
series of events:
1) The Tornado sweeps.
2) Players are affected.
3) Affected scores are reassigned.

The Tornado "sweeping" is "An Event" (rule 203.II) that affects certain
players which causes a random score reassignment "event". Only the
distribution of points requires a random determination, thus the tornado
shall sweep and vacuum when the rules dictate (in this case at the
Vernal Equinox :p ) and the point distribution shall wait for its random
determination.

Equating the entire application of rule 1313 as "An Event" seems less
reasonable.

So what does this have to do with this CFJ? Damned if I know. I wasn't
paying attention - I told you Hey Hey's on....

If the tornado sweeping event did not require a random determination
then the Vernal Equinox (which occurred on 23rd of September at about
1:37am) marked JT as an affected player since e was un-sheltered at the
time. JT's subsequent movement did not cause em to become sheltered at
the time of the Vernal Equinox regardless of whether the random score
determination had occurred yet or not as that would be retroactive and
thus downright Evil.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 05:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 669 (Fortunato)

Fortunato has been selected.

Call for Judgement 669 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Characteristic Definition
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent 27 Sep 1998, 03:11 Acka)
Judge: Fortunato
Judgement:

Statement:  

Sanity is a characteristic

Initiator's Reasoning: 

I think that this should be ruled false, as sanity doesn't define itself as
a characteristic

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 05:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

Eris has been selected.

Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
Judge: Eris
Judgement:

Statement:  

The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.

Reasoning: 

Do you need any?

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

In the thread where this is ruled true, immediately after it is so ruled, I
suggest that Eris and I change the rules to add the following
HARF-delimited text as rule 1:

HARF
All CFJs and appeals of CFJs must be approved by both Eris and Anathema
before they are assigned to judges or cortices.  If consent is not given by
both within three days, the CFJ or appeal is to be considered judged
INVALID.  All Crisis Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by
both Eris and Anathema to be enacted.  Eris and Anathema can add, amend,
and repeal rules by unanimous public agreement.  This rule takes precedence
over all rules.  
HARF

This occurs if Eris agrees.

>Eris has been selected.
>
>Call for Judgement 670 - September 27, 1998
>Subject: Evil Usurpation of Power
>Initiator: Anathema (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:01 Acka)
>Judge: Eris
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:  
>
>The initiator of this CFJ and any judges who ruled in TRUE have the power
>to add, delete, and modify rules by unanimous agreement among themselves.
>
>Reasoning: 
>
>Do you need any?

- --Anathema
  Dungeon Master - Religious Caste - Crazy French Scotsman - Really Weird

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:31:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Its quiet lately

Studge wrote:
>Vynd, optimist wrote:
>>
>>I know the lists were dysfunctional earlier, but that doesn't explain now.
>>I'm waiting to see what scam erupts in the next day or so to engulf Acka
>>like a black cloud.
>
>Just wait.  There's sure to be something.
>
>Studge, pessimist

Just after the next CFJ initiated by me begins to be considered, in the
thread where it is judged TRUE, I do the following:

By the authority of Rule 1 (Heh, Heh, Heh, Didn't think you'd see this in
the ruleset) I amend Rule 340 (Conventions) by replacing the following
BROKEN delimited text with the following FIXED delimited text:

BROKEN
VI. Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denominator 
of that division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire division
shall be 0. 
BROKEN

FIXED
VI. Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denominator of
that division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire division shall
not be considered to have a value.  Instead, the division will be evaluated
as in normal math to be an invalid operation.  If such a situation is
arrived at where a mathematical operation must be performed and tries to
divide by zero, then the Speaker shall make a determination as to what the
value should appropriately be.  In that instance only will the value
interpreted by the Speaker for the operation be considered correct unless a
CFJ successfully alleges that the value determined by the Speaker was not
appropriate. 
FIXED

Then, by the authority of rule 1 I create a rule number 2 titled "Stop the
Anarchy" with the following HOPEFULLYADISASTERAVERTED delimited text:

HOPEFULLYADISASTERAVERTED
{{The state of all entities, their relationships between one another, and
the state of Ackanomic in general is retroactively set to be what it would
have been absent the old version of Rule 340 section VI, except the rules,
which are the same except all proposals but those rejected more than 14
days ago that passed due to Rule 430 section VI's old version still passed.}}

{{[I put the 14 days in there just in case there was argument about the
pragmatism clause]}}

{{This rule takes precedence over all rules including Rule 103 Retroactive
Effects.}}
HOPEFULLYADISASTERAVERTED

And if you're wondering why rule 2 was necessary look through the rules and
change every instance of a number to zero... Just what are valid names with
no more than ZERO CHARACTERS?

If you're still confused wait and read the CFJ (after which these actions
occur).

I will be repealing Rule 1 (Heh, Heh, Heh, Didn't think you'd see this in
the ruleset) shortly.

Studge (mulling over the title Former Perceptive Emperor)

PS if "the pepople" want me to, I'll retroactively kill all the other
proposals that were "voted down", but I thought it would be best to let the
democratic process deal with these after I step down.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: All These Prospective Actions...

come to naught.

There was an earlier case where an attempt was made to prospectively
retract a CFJ.  This has very strong parallels to the prospective actions
made by Anathema and Studge (which are based on events happening regarding
CFJs).

From the Supreme Court's Reasoning on CFJ 489:

The rules are, essentially, silent and/or unclear on this issue, so we
turn to game custom and "spirit of the game". Considering
the latter first, the Court emphatically agrees that prospective
actions are not in the spirit of the game. Not only do they have
remarkable potential to confuse the game state, but the entire
history of the game reflects an assumption of Ackanomic being a
game played in "real-time". Our Rule 371 was born out of a long
process of dealing with the aftermaths of various Hubert
situations, just for the purpose of being able to precisely pinpoint,
when necessary, the time at which a player's actions are
considered to have occurred. 

In regards to the existence of game custom, there are in fact various
examples of prospective actions being permitted to stand in
the past. However, all the examples this Court is aware of predate
(by a good margin) the creation of the Public Action rule, and
the majority of them predate the earliest rules that even addressed
timing issues at all. The Court believes that with regards to
Public Actions, game custom strongly favors the notion that an action
occurs at the time it is attempted. 

Furthermore, these counterexamples of successful prospective actions
nearly always consisted of specifying a precise time in
the future (e.g., "I go on vacation as of midnight."). By contrast,
in this case the initiator attempted an action that was to happen
a specified amount of time after an independent event which had not
yet occurred. A prospective action of this type can thus
remain "dormant", and it is not possible to determine when it will
finally happen until the named event finally takes place. As
Malenkai points out, there is no guarantee of an upper bound, or
"time limit", by which Officers will know that the triggering
event will never happen if it has not already. This can effectively
force them to continue to monitor the game state for the trigger
indefinitely. Again, this is in strong opposition to the spirit of
the game. 

Even though the aforementioned counterexamples set no game custom that
would have any bearing on the current case, the
Court would like to take a closer look at one in particular, just to
emphasize the point. 

The example that comes closest to this case was part of Bascule's
lengthy process of trying to win the second Cycle by
achieving the Magic Number. (Note that at this time, one's score had
to be exactly equal to the Magic Number in order to claim a
win - overshooting did not count.) At one point, Bascule retracted a
number of proposals before they had been distributed by
the Promoter, in an attempt to lower his score the desired amount.
This may appear to be extremely similar to this situation, but
the parallels are superficial. Bascule, it must be emphasized, was
attempting to retract the proposals at the time of his post, and
not in the future, after they were distributed. 

It is possible that the players at the time erred in considering his
action to be successful. It is unclear if, under the rules at the
time, a proposal existed as soon as it was submitted to the Promoter,
or if it was created only when it was distributed. Regardless,
this is not an issue in this situation. Our rules clearly state that
a CFJ is incurred at the time that the Clerk of the Court distributes
it, and not beforehand. 

(Bascule spent several days after that, continually attempting to
land his score on the desired value, and it was from trying to
track the game state through his rapid sequence of actions that the
players first began to appreciate the necessity of having
rules that described when various game-state changes actually
occurred. Proposal 1089 was probably the first major step in that
direction. Further additions and clarifications eventually culminated
in proposal 1714.) 

Having found prospective public actions unsupported by game custom,
and counter to the spirit of the game, the Court has
chosen to return a verdict of FALSE. 

- -- 
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: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:47:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 670 (Eris)

Let me restate this to be more in line with CFJ 489, which ruled against
prospective actions based primarily on their "dormancy"

As of every second from now until one week from now, I suggest that:

Eris and I change the rules to add the following
HARF-delimited text as rule 1, if no rule 1 exists:

HARF
All CFJs and appeals of CFJs must be approved by both Eris nd Anathema
before they are assigned to judges or cortices.  If consent is not given by
both within three days, the CFJ or appeal is to be onsidered judged
INVALID.  All Crisis Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by
both Eris and Anathema to be enacted.  Eris and Anathema can add, amend,
and repeal rules by unanimous public agreement.  This rule takes precedence
over all rules.  
HARF

Eris: how bout some Discordianism here?

- --Anathema
  Dungeon Master - Religious Caste - Crazy French Scotsman - Really Weird

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 06:53:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 671 (Altra the Firecat)

Altra the Firecat has been selected.

Call for Judgement 671 - September 27, 1998
Subject: Zero-Division
Initiator: Studge (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:30 Acka)
Judge: Altra the Firecat
Judgement:

Statement:

All proposal's that appeared to be rejected in the past two weeks were
accepted.

Reasoning:

Ok, division is a system used in normal math and also explicitly in Acka as
well, the rules only specify one distinction between the two systems.
Please point out an error in my reasoning.

For all x

If x/a=b then x=a*b

Rule 340 (Conventions) says:
>VI. Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denominator 
>of that division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire 
>division shall be 0. 

Thus, for all x

x/0=0 so x=0*0=0

and

10^10^100/0=0 so 10^10^100=0*0=0

and the same is true of all numbers used in Acka.

Rule 106 (Voting on Proposals) says:

>The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is 
>three-fifths of the total number of YES and NO votes legally cast 
>within the prescribed voting period. If that value is 0, however, the 
>required number of YES votes for acceptance is 1.

This tells me that a determination must be made thusly

***
If (# of YES votes)/(# of YES & NO votes) >= .6

And that if (# of YES votes) only has to be 0, then it is actually 1.
***

I say that it means "equal to or greater than" because the rule says "IS
three-fifths" and it is implicit that a proposal would not be accepted with
FEWER votes.

Because each of these values is a number and could validly be substituted
for x in the equation x/a=b if we gimmick a and b around, it seems to me that:

(# of YES votes) = 0*0 = 0

(# of YES & NO votes) = 0*0 = 0

.6 = 0*0 = 0

0 = 0

1 = 0*0 = 0

Any proposal passes which meets the criteria 0/0=0 (which in AckaMath is
true and which in math as it is intuitively known is HORRIBLE) should pass.  

This causes the next clause to be read, but that translates to "if the
number of YES votes needed is 0, then it is 0."

Now, when I first walked down this path, I thought that I had grounds for a
Paradox win: Proposals legally passed and didn't each time we saw the
rejection emails.  Then I realized I was
imposing math as it is known outside Acka with no authority to do so.  This
is not a paradox, it just means that all proposals pass. 

Now that the gist of my position is explained, let me deal with the most
official response I could find.  CFJ 503 (in part) says:

>I think the crucial points are the assumptions that multiplying 
>both sides of an equality by the same quantity x maintains the 
>equality, and that you can necessarily cancel every quantity that 
>is on both the top and the bottom of the denominator...

If I understand CollegeMath, this is true and I see no rules based reason
it should not be applied

>...But, if we 
>are in Rule-340 land where x/0=0 for any x, in general nonzero, 
>then: 
>
>	h. a/0 = 0 (From Rule 340) 
>	i. (a/0)*0 = 0 (multiplying both sides by zero) 
>	j. a = 0 (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of
>denominator) 
>
>We would call the above conclusion absurd, since a is not, in 
>general, equal to zero. 

I would note that it is absurd according to math as it is intuited, not
necessarily as it is in Ackanomic.

>So we have several choices to reconcile this. 
>
>	1. We can redefine equality so that every number is equal
>to itself, and to zero. This is what The Gingham Wearer has done. 
>I'm sure most of us remember that hoary old algebraic "proof" that 
>1=2, which involves division by zero at a crucial point. 
>
>	2. We can say that multiplying both sides of an equality 
>by zero does _not_ result in an equality. This is perfectly 
>possible, but I don't think it is strictly necessary. 

I'm not sure I follow why this is "perfectly possible".  It seems to me as
though the more fundamental process of math, especially where they are
referred to by the rules, like division and multiplication would work the
same in Acka as out.  Additionally, this option requires 

a = b, a*c != b*c 

to be valid, which seems to me as if it would cause many more problems than
it "fixes". 

>	3. We can say that zero cannot be cancelled if it is on the 
>numerator and the denominator of a fraction. This one seems to me 
>the most promising. 

This is certainly something we can say, but it seems to me that it requires
significant amounts of intervention on the part of the judge, which would
need to be justified.  It also strikes me that what the Judge is doing is
_not_ analyzing the situation and _finding_ what is correct, but
determining what is correct and _finding_ the desired result in the situation.

The heart of nomic games, it seems to me is following the rules even if the
are silly, unpragmatic, counter-productive, or seem to defy logic at first
glance.  It is unraveling these problems that makes nomic so cool.  If a
rule said, for example "All players more than a mile high to leave the
courts," if any meaning from this statement could be extracted and applied
to play, then we should do so.  Ignoring "what is" in favor of "what is
wanted" runs counter to the idea of a game whose very core is found in
following rules.  Thus, it seems to me we should take rule 340 on face
value and apply it as directly as possible.

>For instance, let us take (a/0)*0. If we presume that we can 
>multiple the factor through, we have (a*0)/0, or 0/0. By Rule 340, 
>this is still equal to zero. Spurious "cancelling" of the zero 
>would result in a, which is still equal to zero. If we assume the 
>cancelling cannot occur, we end up with 0 = 0 instead of a = 0. 
>This breaks down the reasoning in steps e. and f. above, since ax/x 
>does not equal a _iff x=0_...

Note: At this point the judge seems to me to be begging the question: That
a=0 and 0=0 simultaneously in the same equation, is both the conclusion,
and part of the judge's reasoning for why the conclusion is illegitimate.

>...So, (a/x = y) and (b/x = y) implies 
>(a=b) iff x!=0 is the more proper reasoning in this case, and so 
>(a/0 = 0) and (b/0 = 0) does not imply a=b. We are thus able to 
>numerically distinguish rule numbers in this case.
>
>So which of the three cases(well, two, since we'll neglect 2. for 
>the moment)is true? The Rules are silent on this matter, so let me 
>consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game. 
>The former indicates that we can distinguish rule numbers; when 
>Proposal 2433 went through, we did not all decide that all rule 
>numbers were indistinguishable right away. Also, I believe that 
>it is in the spirit of the game for rule numbers to be 
>distinguishable, if we are forced to have division by zero defined 
>as zero in Ackanomic algebra. 

If a rule said "All players with an 's' in eir name shall spend mondays in
Gaol and then leave," were for some reason not noticed, I don't think that
would be justification for ignoring the rule once it was brought up.  I
hold that rule 340 makes one change to math as it is normally harfed and no
more, because it says no more.

Also, let's say that I was in Gaol and said that there were three options:
that I stayed there, that I got to leave, or that I did both
simultaneously.  Because the "Rules are silent on these optins" and I
clearly can't do both, and being in jail is like being in jail, I can go
free any time I want.  The judge of 503 created an overarching
interpretation scheme which the rules did not call for and (since this
recently created scheme was not totally covered by the rules) used game
custom and spirit to ignore the "absurd" but rule necessitated answer.

In short, I don't think the spirit and custom clause can properly be
invoked, AND and think that if it were, the reasons provided would justify
the result given.

>And besides, be fair, _when_ are you ever going to divide a rule 
>number by zero? It's not going to come up that often, so it 
>shouldn't throw the entire game out of whack. 

Point made, unless prompted by this CFJ :) I don't see rule number division
occuring.  But from the larger perspective, when division itself is part of
the _application_ of the rules, doesn't it make sense to ignore rules
concerning division.

Also, note that the idea that "if a rule's application would hurt the game
of rules then we shouldn't apply it" is made explicit here.

>So I must consider case 3. to be true, and judge FALSE. 

I disagree.

Finally, to address the response that "Even if I agree with your reasoning,
the CFJ already set the game custom" I have two responses.

1. We don't need to devolve to game custom only what the rules actually
say, and rules take precedent over game custom even where it is established.

2. Perhaps since CFJ 503 game custom has changed.  As Fo (then Slakko) said
in the argument that prompted this CFJ:

>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.
>
>-- 
>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

I think if our resident "God of Strict Math" (note the PhD in progress)
believes that rule 340 has effects stretching as far as trig, game custom
has changed.

In Conclusion:

Also, you may thank me for waiting for waiting till Proposal 3546 was
rejected a full 15 days ago.  It read in whole: "This is a grandiose
proposal {{All rules are repealed. All players are removed from the game.
Ackanomic is officially ended}}".

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:17:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A public sevice announcement

Regarding prospective CFJ action:
1) Restate the creation of my creation of rule 2 if it has not already
happend, in the CFJ 671 TRUE thread right now (which is legal because my
CFJ affirms an authority already granted, much as JT was able to leave Gaol
on the CFJ on broken conservation laws and Gaol a while back in the FALSE
thread then).

As a public service, I'd like to help everyone understand what the rules
REALLY look like.  Persuant to CFJ 671 being true, the following were all
falsely reported:

On: 9/14/98
Proposal 3549 rejected (New government type: Secret Society)
Proposal 3551 rejected (Senate becomes Senade)
Proposal 3552 rejected (The Book of Valen)
Proposal 3554 rejected (Grads)
Proposal 3557 rejected (Dictionary change)

On: 9/16/98
Proposal 3563 rejected (Grey Counncil unity vote)
Proposal 3565 rejected (No voting for rebels)
Proposal 3564 rejected (Blueprint: Shield of Permenaence)
Proposal 3569 rejected (New government type: Plutocracy)
Proposal 3568 rejected (Thralls = Slavery: This will need to be fixed right
away, it had improper square bracketing that renders it almost meaningless
(at least parts of it))

On: 9/23/98
Proposal 3573 rejected (Anti-Harf)
Proposal 3574 rejected (Repeal I Am Not Dust My Mother Raised!)
Proposal 3579 rejected (3 points for very close anti-voting)
Proposal 3580 rejected (Streaks and Bad Ages)
Proposal 3581 rejected (The Great Captain Hat of Acka for rafting)
Proposal 3583 rejected (whole text: "1237")
Proposal 3587 rejected (penalty for destroying questioned trinkets)
Proposal 3590 rejected (no objecting to getting a name BACK)
Proposal 3589 rejected (Literature list looses translated works)
Proposal 3586 rejected (Studge wins)
Proposal 3597 rejected (game [not cycle] wins and harfing the harfer)
Proposal 3593 rejected (Trinket harfer may stop trinket creation)
Proposal 3596 rejected (ASS songs need keys)
Proposal 3602 rejected (Cut h*berting out of the court system)

On 9/24/98:
Proposal 3605 rejected (Repeal Rules 207.1 and 207.3.)
Proposal 3606 rejected (haiku and harf)
Proposal 3612 rejected (trig IDs for a googolplex)
Proposal 3611 rejected (eyes and blindness)
Proposal 3609 rejected (Studge is emperor)

Studge (still considering the title Former Perceptive Emperor of Ackanomic)

PS

Note first that Prop 3609 passed before the Anathema/Eris CFJ was judged at
all.  Therefore, (assuming eir rule creation worked/works) their action
"added" a rule to the set with a number that was already taken.  This
failed, so eir authority (as they see it [if Eris cooperates]) still only
comes from a CFJ.  But just in case....

By the authority of rule 1 which reads "The player known as Studge when e
joined Ackanomic is able to amend, delete, and add rules as a public
action.", in my emperor thread I add Rule 3 titled "Cross Thread Violence"
whith the text: 

"Any rule which purports to be rule 1 with the text 'All CFJs and appeals
of CFJs must be approved by both Eris and Anathema before they are assigned
to judges or cortices.  If consent is not given by both within three days,
the CFJ or appeal is to be considered judged INVALID.  All Crisis
Resolution Documents must be explicitly approved by both Eris and Anathema
to be enacted.  Eris and Anathema can add, amend, and repeal rules by
unanimous public agreement.  This rule takes precedence over all rules.'
are retroactively deleted from the rules, and kept out in the future by
this rule.

No player BUT Studge may amend, delete, add to, or otherwise affect the set
of rules except by proposals accepted in accordance with the rules.

CFJ 670 is retroactively judged false by Eris.

This rule takes precedence over all rules including Rule 103 Retroactive
Effects."

There, that ought to do it.

Studge (signing off for real)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 09:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 671 (Altra the Firecat)

I'd like to point out my thoughts on this division by zero thing. I don't
think that Ackan maths is different from RL maths at all, rule 340 just
describes the action that must be taken when a division must be made whose
denominator is 0. ie I think that x/0 has no answer but in acka we must
substitute 0 for the answer.

Eris

(Not biased at all.)

>Altra the Firecat has been selected.
>
>Call for Judgement 671 - September 27, 1998
>Subject: Zero-Division
>Initiator: Studge (sent 27 Sep 1998, 06:30 Acka)
>Judge: Altra the Firecat
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:
>
>All proposal's that appeared to be rejected in the past two weeks were
>accepted.
>
>Reasoning:
>
>
>Ok, division is a system used in normal math and also explicitly in Acka as
>well, the rules only specify one distinction between the two systems.
>Please point out an error in my reasoning.
>
>For all x
>
>If x/a=b then x=a*b
>
>Rule 340 (Conventions) says:
>>VI. Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denominator
>>of that division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire
>>division shall be 0.
>
>Thus, for all x
>
>x/0=0 so x=0*0=0
>
>and
>
>10^10^100/0=0 so 10^10^100=0*0=0
>
>and the same is true of all numbers used in Acka.
>
>Rule 106 (Voting on Proposals) says:
>
>>The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is
>>three-fifths of the total number of YES and NO votes legally cast
>>within the prescribed voting period. If that value is 0, however, the
>>required number of YES votes for acceptance is 1.
>
>This tells me that a determination must be made thusly
>
>***
>If (# of YES votes)/(# of YES & NO votes) >= .6
>
>And that if (# of YES votes) only has to be 0, then it is actually 1.
>***
>
>I say that it means "equal to or greater than" because the rule says "IS
>three-fifths" and it is implicit that a proposal would not be accepted with
>FEWER votes.
>
>Because each of these values is a number and could validly be substituted
>for x in the equation x/a=b if we gimmick a and b around, it seems to me
that:
>
>(# of YES votes) = 0*0 = 0
>
>(# of YES & NO votes) = 0*0 = 0
>
>.6 = 0*0 = 0
>
>0 = 0
>
>1 = 0*0 = 0
>
>Any proposal passes which meets the criteria 0/0=0 (which in AckaMath is
>true and which in math as it is intuitively known is HORRIBLE) should pass.
>
>This causes the next clause to be read, but that translates to "if the
>number of YES votes needed is 0, then it is 0."
>
>Now, when I first walked down this path, I thought that I had grounds for a
>Paradox win: Proposals legally passed and didn't each time we saw the
>rejection emails.  Then I realized I was
>imposing math as it is known outside Acka with no authority to do so.  This
>is not a paradox, it just means that all proposals pass.
>
>Now that the gist of my position is explained, let me deal with the most
>official response I could find.  CFJ 503 (in part) says:
>
>>I think the crucial points are the assumptions that multiplying
>>both sides of an equality by the same quantity x maintains the
>>equality, and that you can necessarily cancel every quantity that
>>is on both the top and the bottom of the denominator...
>
>If I understand CollegeMath, this is true and I see no rules based reason
>it should not be applied
>
>>...But, if we
>>are in Rule-340 land where x/0=0 for any x, in general nonzero,
>>then:
>>
>> h. a/0 = 0 (From Rule 340)
>> i. (a/0)*0 = 0 (multiplying both sides by zero)
>> j. a = 0 (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of
>>denominator)
>>
>>We would call the above conclusion absurd, since a is not, in
>>general, equal to zero.
>
>I would note that it is absurd according to math as it is intuited, not
>necessarily as it is in Ackanomic.
>
>>So we have several choices to reconcile this.
>>
>> 1. We can redefine equality so that every number is equal
>>to itself, and to zero. This is what The Gingham Wearer has done.
>>I'm sure most of us remember that hoary old algebraic "proof" that
>>1=2, which involves division by zero at a crucial point.
>>
>> 2. We can say that multiplying both sides of an equality
>>by zero does _not_ result in an equality. This is perfectly
>>possible, but I don't think it is strictly necessary.
>
>I'm not sure I follow why this is "perfectly possible".  It seems to me as
>though the more fundamental process of math, especially where they are
>referred to by the rules, like division and multiplication would work the
>same in Acka as out.  Additionally, this option requires
>
>a = b, a*c != b*c
>
>to be valid, which seems to me as if it would cause many more problems than
>it "fixes".
>
>> 3. We can say that zero cannot be cancelled if it is on the
>>numerator and the denominator of a fraction. This one seems to me
>>the most promising.
>
>This is certainly something we can say, but it seems to me that it requires
>significant amounts of intervention on the part of the judge, which would
>need to be justified.  It also strikes me that what the Judge is doing is
>_not_ analyzing the situation and _finding_ what is correct, but
>determining what is correct and _finding_ the desired result in the
situation.
>
>The heart of nomic games, it seems to me is following the rules even if the
>are silly, unpragmatic, counter-productive, or seem to defy logic at first
>glance.  It is unraveling these problems that makes nomic so cool.  If a
>rule said, for example "All players more than a mile high to leave the
>courts," if any meaning from this statement could be extracted and applied
>to play, then we should do so.  Ignoring "what is" in favor of "what is
>wanted" runs counter to the idea of a game whose very core is found in
>following rules.  Thus, it seems to me we should take rule 340 on face
>value and apply it as directly as possible.
>
>>For instance, let us take (a/0)*0. If we presume that we can
>>multiple the factor through, we have (a*0)/0, or 0/0. By Rule 340,
>>this is still equal to zero. Spurious "cancelling" of the zero
>>would result in a, which is still equal to zero. If we assume the
>>cancelling cannot occur, we end up with 0 = 0 instead of a = 0.
>>This breaks down the reasoning in steps e. and f. above, since ax/x
>>does not equal a _iff x=0_...
>
>Note: At this point the judge seems to me to be begging the question: That
>a=0 and 0=0 simultaneously in the same equation, is both the conclusion,
>and part of the judge's reasoning for why the conclusion is illegitimate.
>
>>...So, (a/x = y) and (b/x = y) implies
>>(a=b) iff x!=0 is the more proper reasoning in this case, and so
>>(a/0 = 0) and (b/0 = 0) does not imply a=b. We are thus able to
>>numerically distinguish rule numbers in this case.
>>
>>So which of the three cases(well, two, since we'll neglect 2. for
>>the moment)is true? The Rules are silent on this matter, so let me
>>consider currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game.
>>The former indicates that we can distinguish rule numbers; when
>>Proposal 2433 went through, we did not all decide that all rule
>>numbers were indistinguishable right away. Also, I believe that
>>it is in the spirit of the game for rule numbers to be
>>distinguishable, if we are forced to have division by zero defined
>>as zero in Ackanomic algebra.
>
>If a rule said "All players with an 's' in eir name shall spend mondays in
>Gaol and then leave," were for some reason not noticed, I don't think that
>would be justification for ignoring the rule once it was brought up.  I
>hold that rule 340 makes one change to math as it is normally harfed and no
>more, because it says no more.
>
>Also, let's say that I was in Gaol and said that there were three options:
>that I stayed there, that I got to leave, or that I did both
>simultaneously.  Because the "Rules are silent on these optins" and I
>clearly can't do both, and being in jail is like being in jail, I can go
>free any time I want.  The judge of 503 created an overarching
>interpretation scheme which the rules did not call for and (since this
>recently created scheme was not totally covered by the rules) used game
>custom and spirit to ignore the "absurd" but rule necessitated answer.
>
>In short, I don't think the spirit and custom clause can properly be
>invoked, AND and think that if it were, the reasons provided would justify
>the result given.
>
>>And besides, be fair, _when_ are you ever going to divide a rule
>>number by zero? It's not going to come up that often, so it
>>shouldn't throw the entire game out of whack.
>
>Point made, unless prompted by this CFJ :) I don't see rule number division
>occuring.  But from the larger perspective, when division itself is part of
>the _application_ of the rules, doesn't it make sense to ignore rules
>concerning division.
>
>Also, note that the idea that "if a rule's application would hurt the game
>of rules then we shouldn't apply it" is made explicit here.
>
>>So I must consider case 3. to be true, and judge FALSE.
>
>I disagree.
>
>Finally, to address the response that "Even if I agree with your reasoning,
>the CFJ already set the game custom" I have two responses.
>
>1. We don't need to devolve to game custom only what the rules actually
>say, and rules take precedent over game custom even where it is
established.
>
>2. Perhaps since CFJ 503 game custom has changed.  As Fo (then Slakko) said
>in the argument that prompted this CFJ:
>
>>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.
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>I think if our resident "God of Strict Math" (note the PhD in progress)
>believes that rule 340 has effects stretching as far as trig, game custom
>has changed.
>
>In Conclusion:
>
>Also, you may thank me for waiting for waiting till Proposal 3546 was
>rejected a full 15 days ago.  It read in whole: "This is a grandiose
>proposal {{All rules are repealed. All players are removed from the game.
>Ackanomic is officially ended}}".
>
>
>

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #336
*******************************