Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #378
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Tuesday, October 27 1998       Volume 03 : Number 378

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:18:15 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A frivolous thing

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>
>> Man, I'm stoned.
>
>I create a trinket called "A Momentous Occasion" with a value of A$4.20
>and a description of "An oil painting of huge tie-dyed crowds giggling and 
>lackdaisically applauding a giant hat, which seems to be muttering
>something about 'more brownies,' although how an object depicted in a
>painting can seem to be muttering is far beyond me."  I gift this trinket
>to A Mean Hat, for being the first to legally use a rule I've been trying
>to get instated since my first days in Ackanomic.

After double checking the rules, this actually does occur but the value is
rounded up to A$5.

>I give Rambo R Minuteman, JT, and K 2 each A$4.20 for getting the rule
>passed, helping with its reinstatement, and declaring emself Stoned before
>it was regulated by the Rules, respectively.

These were also rounded up to A$5.

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 02:21:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Poet Laureate - risE

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Head Apollo wrote:

> I think you have to specify a date for the below request (but I can have it
> done within the week). While I'm here does anyone know or have evidence of

All right.  I want it within the week.

Put your, um, poetry where your fingers are.  Yeah.

> the literary tradition of Acka? Apparently I have to maintain a web page or
> something... must read these rules beforehand.

Yeah, but no one said you couldn't fake it.

- -The Green Ripper

If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn? 

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:24:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Rule-harfing(acka)

after a bit of trouble with my bot (It was randomly deleting double-quotes
and commas that it didnt like from the ruleset), I've gotten all the recent
changes harfed and up at www.ackanomic.org/rules/ 

some items of note:

In prop 3675, a change was specified for rule 595 of text which was
actually in rule 594.  As per the CFJ on prop 3621, I harfed the change as
being an unambiguous typo.

Scorekeeper and anyone else interested: note:

I'm uncertain whether or not prop 3677 was null.  I'm harfing it as
non-null for now, but I encourage someone to CFJ that.  You see, JT refers
to sections D., E., and F. of rule 1230.1, but that rule has 3 section
groupings that include D., E., and F.  This would be quite obviously
ambiguous, and therefore null, except that the other two section groupings
extend beyond F (to K and G).  It may still be ambiguous.  But until a CFJ,
I'm harfing it as non-null.

- --A Mean Hat.
Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master -- Art Thief -- Warrior Caste -- Crazy
French Scotsman -- Really Weird

- -- "I pledge my troth to Lady Jane" [The Rolling Stones]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:36:28 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSRR

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, JT wrote:
>Hey, just a general call.  If there are other changes that need a CSR,
>please let me know.
>
>I now issue the following CSR numbered 164 (since I noticed it) as
>delimited by ACKA_NOMICON
>ACKA_NOMICON
>In the rule 'Dogver and Ratver' (1390.13), replace 'rhyme in Ackanomicon'
>with 'rhyme in Ackanomic'
>ACKA_NOMICON

This CSR has been objected to by greater than 2 people and thus has
failed.

- --JT, who just checked that he doesn't have to wait 3 days since it
already failed.

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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, 27 Oct 1998 02:42:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: prop 3675

Rule 451 - Noculis Stimuli
Rambo R Minuteman is giving me a real headache

- --A Mean Hat.
Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master -- Art Thief -- Warrior Caste -- Crazy
French Scotsman -- Really Weird

- -- "Like a Rolling Stone... Like the FBI...Like the CIA" [The Beatles]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:17:47 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Non-Voting (Aunt Froot)

Aunt Froot has become non-voting for not touching his puppet head.
The puppet head has been destroyed.

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 03:22:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Notice to officers who are getting my name wrong

My name is the following "-delimited string:

"
A Mean Hat.
"

not the following '-delimited string:

'
A Mean Hat
'

You know who you are

- --A Mean Hat.
Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master -- Art Thief -- Warrior Caste -- Crazy
French Scotsman -- Really Weird

- -- "Like a Rolling Stone... Like the FBI...Like the CIA" [The Beatles]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 03:25:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 676 (1-UNDECIDED) (TEFKatSC)

Slakko has judged this UNDECIDED.
It therefore goes to a Supreme Cortex, TEFKatSC.
Filling in for breadbox is Alfvaen.

Call for Judgement 676 - October 20, 1998
Subject: Agenda CWCFJ
Initiator: JT (sent Oct 20 1998, 04:43 Acka)
Judge: Slakko (chosen Oct 20 1998, 18:14 Acka)
Judgement: UNDECIDED

Statement:

JT has achieved a winning condition during the current cycle of Ackanomic.

Reasoning:

I own the following agenda hats:
   Hat C7 : "The player wearing this hat must be wearing at least six
            other garments, none of which are agenda hats."
   Hat  8 : "The owner of this hat is the Overlord of the owner of this
            eggplant."
   Hat  3 : "The owner of this hat has been in at least 1 duel and has not
            lost more than 2 duels."

Hat C7 has been true for quite some time as I am wearing 6 wool
sweaters, all of which are garments and none of which are agenda hats.

Hat 8 is true after the above play of the Otzma Card Enslavment.  I am now
the Overloard of Studge, and Studge is the owner of the eggplant for hat
number 8.

Hat 3 is true as I have been in more than 1 duel and have not lost more
than 2 (in fact I have not lost any).

The combined weight of these hats is 30+110+(-30) which is 110.

My score is greater than or equal to 110 being 246.

Therefore, I have achieved a winning condition and the title Agent of
KAOS.

Judge's Reasoning:
I have no evidence one way or the other that the three Agenda Hats JT has
specified are the only Agenda Hats e owns.  I cannot find the information
on the P/E page or the Illuminatus page, and I do not have the time to
comb through the last year of email archives to see what happened to them.

I therefore pass this onto a Supreme Cortex, who may either (a) have more
time, or (b) see a way around this to enable a decent judgement.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:06:42 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ Argh!

I donate A$5 to the twits.
I retract CFJ 676 (and lose 3 points in the process)

I now reveal the following two hats (I'd misread the agenda win rule).
1. The wearer of this hat has more fleas than a barrel full of
monkeys, and both fleas and barrels full of monkeys are defined by the
rules.

12. The owner of this hat and the owner of the hat whose number is five
higher than this one are members of the same Caste.

I trade Hat number 1 to the Mad Hatters for A$1
I trade Hat number 12 to the Mad Hatters for A$1

I wonder 'Undecided' on that CWCFJ gets me the goose or not? (I think it
might, which really makes me go grr)

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 04:14:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ Argh!

At 04:06 AM 10/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I donate A$5 to the twits.
>I retract CFJ 676 (and lose 3 points in the process)
>
>I now reveal the following two hats (I'd misread the agenda win rule).
>1. The wearer of this hat has more fleas than a barrel full of
>monkeys, and both fleas and barrels full of monkeys are defined by the
>rules.
>
>12. The owner of this hat and the owner of the hat whose number is five
>higher than this one are members of the same Caste.
>
>
>I trade Hat number 1 to the Mad Hatters for A$1
>I trade Hat number 12 to the Mad Hatters for A$1
>
>I wonder 'Undecided' on that CWCFJ gets me the goose or not? (I think it
>might, which really makes me go grr)
>

I trade the mad hatters A$10 for Hat 12 and thwap JT for not thinking of me.
- --A Mean Hat.
Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master -- Art Thief -- Warrior Caste -- Crazy
French Scotsman -- Really Weird

- -- "Like a Rolling Stone... Like the FBI...Like the CIA" [The Beatles]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:55:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 677 (TRUE)

eirs has judged this TRUE.

Call for Judgement 677 - October 21, 1998
Subject: Manipulation of Non-Entities
Initiator: Slakko (sent 21 Oct 1998, 04:23 Acka)
Judge: risE (chosen 21 Oct 1998, 04:23 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

An offer to trade entities which is conditional only on the manipulation
of non-entities will not occur legally, unless the section of Rule 701
commonly known as the "pragmatism clause" is applied.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Manipulation of non-entities is acceptable, as long as it does not affect
the game state.  In the above instance, however, the manipulation does
affec the game state, by causing an offered trade of entities to occur,
and hence changing who owns which entities.  As a result, any such
attempted non-entity manipulation will fail (as the rules prevent it from
forcing the game state change).  Hence, if Rule 701 is not invoked, the
trade which relies on the non-entity manipulation will not have occurred
legally.

Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 515 ("Trading and Gifts") states that if the message containing a
trade
"states specifically to which Players the trade is offered, then the trade
is exclusive; otherwise it is offered at large." It seems to me that the
word "specifically" here implies that such an offer cannot be conditional
at
all. Unfortunately, game custom seems to be against me here so this is not
enough.

Rule 101 ("The Game of Ackanomic") reads in part: "The rules and the game
state may only be changed as described in the rules." Therefore, at first
glance it appears obvious that a non-entity manipulation (ie one not
defined
in the rules) cannot alter the game state, in this case to allow a trade
to
occur.

JT, however, recently said; "I don't believe that the [non-entity
manipulation] in fact changed the game state. The posting of the message
(a
valid thing for a player to do) consisting of a specific manipulation of a
specific non-entity however did change the game state." I would like to
contend that in Ackanomic posting a message containing a description of an
action and actually performing that action are one and the same thing.
Even
if this is not precisely the case here, it seems clear to me that the very
action of posting a message which changes the game state is only valid if
that type of message is explicitly allowed in the rules. For example, if I
were to post a message reading; "risE may change the rules at will" it
would
not have any game effect in spite of the fact that some kinds of posted
messages are regulated by the rules.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:55:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 175 (A Mean Hat)

A Mean Hat has been selected. 

Call for Criminal Judgement 175 - October 24, 1998
Subject: Wild Card Blatant Disregard
Initiator: Rambo R Minuteman (sent Oct 24 1998, 15:25 Acka)
Judge: A Mean Hat
Judgement:

Statement:

Wild Card commited the Crime of Blatant Disregard on October the 24th,
1998.

Initiator's Reasoning:

First off, I know I said I wouldn't submit a CFCJ on this issue but I
have been retained by the honourable A Mean Hat who may or may not be in
an insane ammount of debt and hence unable to call a CFCJ.

Wild Card was given some Otzma cards today that gave him a total of 7.
Rule 1240.1 states:

"2. Any single player may not own more than six Otzma Cards
simultaneously."

Rule 701 states:

"To break the Rules is to commit the Crime of Blatant Disregard."

By owning more than 6 OCs Wild Card was breaking the rules and therefore
committing the crime of Blatant Disregard.

Suggested Penalty:
A DEDUCTION of 15 points.
A SENTENCE  of 2 days in gaol.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:22:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: That there 3706.

You know you love chaos.  Vote for it.  Vote in favor of it.  Vote 'YES'.

IB
it is new, therefore I fear it.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:30:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ Argh!

> I donate A$5 to the twits.
> I retract CFJ 676 (and lose 3 points in the process)

> I wonder 'Undecided' on that CWCFJ gets me the goose or not? (I think it
> might, which really makes me go grr)

Actually, what I wonder is whether or not UNDECIDED is considered a
"verdict", which would make it impossible for you to retract it either.
Considering the interchangeability of "verdict" and "judgement" in the
appropriate Rules, I think it would be best to harf this retracting as
having failed.

> I now reveal the following two hats (I'd misread the agenda win rule).
> 1. The wearer of this hat has more fleas than a barrel full of
> monkeys, and both fleas and barrels full of monkeys are defined by the
> rules.

> 12. The owner of this hat and the owner of the hat whose number is five
> higher than this one are members of the same Caste.

> I trade Hat number 1 to the Mad Hatters for A$1
> I trade Hat number 12 to the Mad Hatters for A$1

This will make it much easier to judge, though...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Dwight Yoakam:Guitars, Cadillacs, Etc.
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Legacy of Earth
They laughed when I said I wanted to be a comedian.  They're not laughing now.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:24:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: oops

In the course of reupdating the rules from the last 40-odd proposals, I
missed one.  Slakko's repeal of Justices Rock and the folding over of some
of the important parts into the Supreme Court Rules elsewhere is not
reflected on my page.  This will be all better soon.

Again, the page is at www.ackanomic.org/rules/

- --A Mean Hat.
Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master -- Art Thief -- Warrior Caste -- Crazy
French Scotsman -- Really Weird

- -- "Like a Rolling Stone... Like the FBI...Like the CIA" [The Beatles]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:57:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma

In all threads where Slakko has played a Share Your Income card on
A Mean Hat. in the past 3 days and it has not yet been countered, I
play my Go Fish card on that Share Your Income card.

In all other threads where Wild Card has used a Go Fish card within the
last 3 days on Leather Artifact's Share Your Income card that was played
on Wild Card, I use my Go Fish card on that Go Fish card played by Wild Card.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:35:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Interesting...

Rule 600 says:

   A player cannot achieve a
   Winning Condition while e holds the Chartreuse Goose.

and

   When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular Cycle-Win CFJ, if
   the final verdict is true, and the player who submitted the CFJ is a
   voting player at that time, then that player wins the cycle.

and

   This rule takes precedence over all rules which mention winning a
   cycle where there is a conflict. This is true even if that player
   holds the Chartreuse Goose, as long as e did not do so when the
   Winning Condition was achieved.

Rule 620 says:

   A player who possesses the Chartreuse Goose may not win the Cycle
   except as specified under Rule 600. This clause takes precedence over
   any other rule which establishes winning conditions.

So, a player who has the goose can't win a cycle except by Rule 600, which
allows him to do so by having a CWCFJ judged true, which requires him to
have achieved a winning condition, which he can't do while he has the goose.

This looks good, it allows players who get the goose after having achieved
a winning condition to still get the win, but a player who already has the
goose can't get a winning condition, so can't get a win.  This is exactly
how this part should work.

However, Rule 620 also states:

   7) Upon a player who possesses the Goose achieving any of the
   following titles, the Goose is transferred Somewhere Else: Commander
   of the Blue Cross, Officer of the Blue Cross, Sage o'Doe Gas, Agent of
   KAOS, Angry Villager. If the event which granted one of these titles
   also would have established a winning condition had the player not had
   the Goose, this transfer is deemed to have occurred an infinitesimal
   amount of time after that event.

and Rule 607 states:

   If a voting player owns at least three Agenda Hats, and it is publicly
   knowable that the condition for each Agenda Hat e owns is true, and
   that player's score is greater than or equal to the sum of the weights
   of all of the agenda hats e owns, then the following will occur:
   
   a) E will receive the title of Agent of KAOS. Any other player with
   this title loses it.

[some stuff deleted]

   d) The Agent of KAOS achieves a Winning Condition.

If JT actually met the condition in Rule 607 last night when he got rid of
the extra agenda hats he owned, then Rule 620 did its thing after step a)
in Rule 607 above.  An infinitesimal time after JT received the title of
Agent of KAOS, the goose flew Somewhere Else.  Then Rule 607 continued
doing its thing, and JT (successfully) achieved a Winning Condition!

Bizarre.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> This looks good, it allows players who get the goose after having achieved
> a winning condition to still get the win, but a player who already has the
> goose can't get a winning condition, so can't get a win.  This is exactly
> how this part should work.
> 
> However, Rule 620 also states:
> 
>    7) Upon a player who possesses the Goose achieving any of the
>    following titles, the Goose is transferred Somewhere Else: Commander
>    of the Blue Cross, Officer of the Blue Cross, Sage o'Doe Gas, Agent of
>    KAOS, Angry Villager. If the event which granted one of these titles
>    also would have established a winning condition had the player not had
>    the Goose, this transfer is deemed to have occurred an infinitesimal
>    amount of time after that event.
> 
> and Rule 607 states:
> 
>    If a voting player owns at least three Agenda Hats, and it is publicly
>    knowable that the condition for each Agenda Hat e owns is true, and
>    that player's score is greater than or equal to the sum of the weights
>    of all of the agenda hats e owns, then the following will occur:
>    
>    a) E will receive the title of Agent of KAOS. Any other player with
>    this title loses it.
> 
> [some stuff deleted]
> 
>    d) The Agent of KAOS achieves a Winning Condition.
> 
> If JT actually met the condition in Rule 607 last night when he got rid of
> the extra agenda hats he owned, then Rule 620 did its thing after step a)
> in Rule 607 above.  An infinitesimal time after JT received the title of
> Agent of KAOS, the goose flew Somewhere Else.  Then Rule 607 continued
> doing its thing, and JT (successfully) achieved a Winning Condition!

This depends on the ordering of the infinitesimals.  That's bizarre.

Timescale:

0: Rule 607's Agenda Stuff Invoked
0 + inf: 607 a) happens
0 + inf + inf: 620 section 7) happens
0 + inf + inf: 607 b) happens
etc.

The problem is that we have no clear cut way of ordering the two different
infinitesimal timeslices.  Which of them happened first - 607 d) being
invoked or 620 being invoked?  Both happened an infinitesimal amount of
time after Rule 607 was first invoked.  That's all we know.

- -- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:18:19 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
>This depends on the ordering of the infinitesimals.  That's bizarre.
>
>Timescale:
>
>0: Rule 607's Agenda Stuff Invoked
>0 + inf: 607 a) happens
>0 + inf + inf: 620 section 7) happens
>0 + inf + inf: 607 b) happens
>etc.
>
>The problem is that we have no clear cut way of ordering the two different
>infinitesimal timeslices.  Which of them happened first - 607 d) being
>invoked or 620 being invoked?  Both happened an infinitesimal amount of
>time after Rule 607 was first invoked.  That's all we know.

Well we know that both 607 b) and rule 620 happened an infinitesimal time
after 607 a) and that 607 c) happened an infinitesimal time after b) and
d) an infinitesimal time after that, so there is an ordering withing 607.
I'd believe that 607 b) and 620 happened at the same 'instant' which was
infinitesimally before anything later in rule 607, but I will admit to
being biased.   Should make for a very interesting CFJ if someone submits
it.

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 12:44:47 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> This depends on the ordering of the infinitesimals.  That's bizarre.
> 
> Timescale:
> 
> 0: Rule 607's Agenda Stuff Invoked
> 0 + inf: 607 a) happens
> 0 + inf + inf: 620 section 7) happens
> 0 + inf + inf: 607 b) happens
> etc.
> 
> The problem is that we have no clear cut way of ordering the two different
> infinitesimal timeslices.  Which of them happened first - 607 d) being
> invoked or 620 being invoked?  Both happened an infinitesimal amount of
> time after Rule 607 was first invoked.  That's all we know.
> 

Is it possible that all of the effects described in Rule 607 occur at the
same time? I can't really remember what custom would indicate here, but my
suspicion is that no, they don't all happen at once. But I'm often wrong.
:)  If they all happen at once, then I don't think  there is a problem.
Rule 607 does its thing (all of it) and then rule 620 notices that someone
has become an Agent of KAOS, and sends the Goose packing.

Vynd

[email-masked]

> -- 
> Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
> Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
> Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:55:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, JT wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
> >This depends on the ordering of the infinitesimals.  That's bizarre.
> >
> >Timescale:
> >
> >0: Rule 607's Agenda Stuff Invoked
> >0 + inf: 607 a) happens
> >0 + inf + inf: 620 section 7) happens
> >0 + inf + inf: 607 b) happens
> >etc.
> >
> >The problem is that we have no clear cut way of ordering the two different
> >infinitesimal timeslices.  Which of them happened first - 607 d) being
> >invoked or 620 being invoked?  Both happened an infinitesimal amount of
> >time after Rule 607 was first invoked.  That's all we know.
> 
> Well we know that both 607 b) and rule 620 happened an infinitesimal time
> after 607 a) and that 607 c) happened an infinitesimal time after b) and
> d) an infinitesimal time after that, so there is an ordering withing 607.
> I'd believe that 607 b) and 620 happened at the same 'instant' which was
> infinitesimally before anything later in rule 607, but I will admit to
> being biased.   Should make for a very interesting CFJ if someone submits
> it.

The problem is that we don't really know what "infinitesimal" means in
these contexts.  An infinitesimal is smaller than any actual number in
mathematical terminology - however, there is more than one infinitesimal -
how do we know that one of these infinitesimals isn't five times as long
as one of the others?  All that we know is that they happen "between
instants".

- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:39:43 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>> Well we know that both 607 b) and rule 620 happened an infinitesimal time
>> after 607 a) and that 607 c) happened an infinitesimal time after b) and
>> d) an infinitesimal time after that, so there is an ordering withing 607.
>> I'd believe that 607 b) and 620 happened at the same 'instant' which was
>> infinitesimally before anything later in rule 607, but I will admit to
>> being biased.   Should make for a very interesting CFJ if someone submits
>> it.
>
>The problem is that we don't really know what "infinitesimal" means in
>these contexts.  An infinitesimal is smaller than any actual number in
>mathematical terminology - however, there is more than one infinitesimal -
>how do we know that one of these infinitesimals isn't five times as long
>as one of the others?  All that we know is that they happen "between
>instants".

What possible justification would there be to choosing an infinitesimal
instant of different lengths in different rules?  If we assume (for the
sake of consistancy) that all infinitesimals are of the same 'length' it
offers a valid interpretation that makes sense.

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 14:30:51 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silver Stripe (Rambo R Minuteman)

It is with great pleasure that I present Rambo R Minuteman with a new and
very silvery Silver Stripe for reaching a Blue Cross Rank of 70.

Congratulations.

- --JT, President

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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, 27 Oct 1998 14:39:21 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackanomic.org

I notice that the Ackanomic.org main page still points to Slakko's old
page.  Someone might want to update that.

Fortunato

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:00:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic.org

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

> I notice that the Ackanomic.org main page still points to Slakko's old
> page.  Someone might want to update that.
> 
> Fortunato
> 

Someone would, but someone never can keep straight what the heck is going
on with where the real page is.  Someone could use a URL in an email 
message addressed to someone.  Someone originally GOT the domain cause
someone never could figure out and/or remember where the page was.
Someone used to spend all his time going to wilma, then Alfvaen's page
folowing the links said, not here, go here.

IB
I'm someone.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:04:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic.org

> Someone would, but someone never can keep straight what the heck is going
> on with where the real page is.  Someone could use a URL in an email
> message addressed to someone.  Someone originally GOT the domain cause
> someone never could figure out and/or remember where the page was.
> Someone used to spend all his time going to wilma, then Alfvaen's page
> folowing the links said, not here, go here.

Try http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/ then.

RRM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:08:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic.org

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Try http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/ then.
> 

I'm quite sure that someone thanks you.  Someone seems to have completed
this change. :-)

IB

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:55:29 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More stripes

After awarding Rambo eir Silver stripe earlier today, I went over the page
of records, and found qite a few more people who needed stripes of various
natures and had not yet recieved them.  So, without further ado, I present
a silver stripe to Alfvaen, to K 2, and to Slakko.  I carry a fourth
silver stripe over to breadbox's house and leave it under his door for him
to find when he wakes up again.
I also present a gold stripe to Calvin N Hobbes, removing his 3 silver
stripes in the process.  (I don't know how out of date that one is, but it
has now been done)

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 17:59:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, JT wrote:

> What possible justification would there be to choosing an infinitesimal
> instant of different lengths in different rules?  If we assume (for the
> sake of consistancy) that all infinitesimals are of the same 'length' it
> offers a valid interpretation that makes sense.

Ahh, yes, but _which_ length?  There are an infinite number of different
lengths to choose from, and the rules do not specify which.  Do you want
to have to make a random determination for each infinitesimal amount, from
an infinite number of alternatives?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:01:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic.org

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Matt Miller wrote:

> Someone would, but someone never can keep straight what the heck is going
> on with where the real page is.  Someone could use a URL in an email 
> message addressed to someone.  Someone originally GOT the domain cause
> someone never could figure out and/or remember where the page was.
> Someone used to spend all his time going to wilma, then Alfvaen's page
> folowing the links said, not here, go here.
> IB
> I'm someone.

Message to someone:

I did actually indicate on or about the 27th of September about the
impending move (which happened on the 30th of September IIRC).  I clearly
indicated that the main page would be moving to 
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/index.html

and asked you, IdiotBoy, to please update the meta page at ackanomic.org.

Could you please do this now.

Yours,
Slakko
Web-Harfer
- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:08:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic.org

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I did actually indicate on or about the 27th of September about the
> impending move (which happened on the 30th of September IIRC).  I clearly
> indicated that the main page would be moving to 
> http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/Nomic/Acka/index.html
> 
> and asked you, IdiotBoy, to please update the meta page at ackanomic.org.
> 
> Could you please do this now.

Frankly, this message makes me want to break it again.

IB
unamused. 

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:09:50 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> What possible justification would there be to choosing an infinitesimal
>> instant of different lengths in different rules?  If we assume (for the
>> sake of consistancy) that all infinitesimals are of the same 'length' it
>> offers a valid interpretation that makes sense.
>
>Ahh, yes, but _which_ length?  There are an infinite number of different
>lengths to choose from, and the rules do not specify which.  Do you want
>to have to make a random determination for each infinitesimal amount, from
>an infinite number of alternatives?

That's a non-issue.  Pick one, any one as long as it's an infinitesimal
amount of time, and now use that same length infinitesimal everywhere.
It doesn't matter whether it's infinitesimal-1 or infinitesimal-5 (out of
the infinite possible sizes of infinitesimal things).  If you use one
'size' as the size of an infinitsimal amount of time, this ordering
problem ceases to be one.  Since the time is infinitesimal, whether I (or
you or anyone else) chooses one that's 5 times the length of any other
doesn't matter as long as the same length is chosen uniformly across all
rules which seems to make the most sense and which completely removes the
timing issue you keep trying to bring up.

- --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, 27 Oct 1998 18:19:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Head Apollo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Poet Laureate - risE

>All right.  I want it within the week.

I accept this commision. (I assume the time limit to be by 00:00 Sunday.)

>Put your, um, poetry where your fingers are.  Yeah.

uh... on the mouse?

>Yeah, but no one said you couldn't fake it.

Oh no. I think they're on to me.

eirs

(What's eirs is mine.)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:05:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting...

On  10/27/98 JT wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, JT wrote:
>>
>>> What possible justification would there be to choosing an infinitesimal
>>> instant of different lengths in different rules?  If we assume (for the
>>> sake of consistancy) that all infinitesimals are of the same 'length' it
>>> offers a valid interpretation that makes sense.
>>
>>Ahh, yes, but _which_ length?  There are an infinite number of different
>>lengths to choose from, and the rules do not specify which.  Do you want
>>to have to make a random determination for each infinitesimal amount, from
>>an infinite number of alternatives?
>
>That's a non-issue.  Pick one, any one as long as it's an infinitesimal
>amount of time, and now use that same length infinitesimal everywhere.
>It doesn't matter whether it's infinitesimal-1 or infinitesimal-5 (out of
>the infinite possible sizes of infinitesimal things).  If you use one
>'size' as the size of an infinitsimal amount of time, this ordering
>problem ceases to be one.  Since the time is infinitesimal, whether I (or
>you or anyone else) chooses one that's 5 times the length of any other
>doesn't matter as long as the same length is chosen uniformly across all
>rules which seems to make the most sense and which completely removes the
>timing issue you keep trying to bring up.

Remember this:

****
Call for Judgement 656 - September 5, 1998
Subject: Government Type Change
Initiator: Weishaupt (sent Sep 5 1998, 17:16 Acka)
Judge: Ethelred (chosen Sep 5 1998, 17:54 Acka)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

     Any attempt to change government type will effectively result in
eternal Anarchy.

Initiator's Reasoning:

     Rule 320 (Governments Rule Suite) says in its first paragraph: "There
exists a type of unownable, named entities called Government Types. All
Government Types are either Active or Dormant. At most one government type
may be Active at any one time; if the rules cause one to become Active and
there is already an Active Government Type then the latter will become
Dormant an infinitesimal ammount [sic] of time before the former becomes
Active. If no Government type is Active then the Government Type Anarchy
(if it exists) becomes Active. The Active Government Type is known as The
Current Government of Ackanomia."

     When the rules are applied to change the government then, during the
"infinitesimal ammount [sic] of time" "no Government type is Active"
causing Anarchy to become active. At the end of Anarchy there must be a
change which causes "no Government type... ...(to be) Active". Therefore
the Government Type will go to Anarchy, stop, go back to Anarchy, stop, go
back to Anarchy.... etc.

     Fah! 

Judge's Reasoning:

     It is a de facto impossibility to describe something that "happens"
for an immeasurably small amount of time. In fact, it is absurd to even
contemplate it as having happened at all. The amount of time that "exists"
between changes of government is immeasurably small, thus any attempt to
describe it as a period of time when there is no government is absurd.

     Furthermore, I believe that the rules and game custom support an
interpretation of "infinitessimal amount of time" as logically equivalent
to "no time at all".

     Hence I conclude that there is never a period of time when there is no
government, because even if such a state of affairs were to come about, it
would not exist in any way such that it would be reasonable for anyone to
consider it to have existed before Anarchy takes over, and any
rule-sanctioned change of government type to another government type than
anarchy would be successful.
****

Just thought I'd remind the discussion that this issue takes place in a
NoOoOomic (spooky wavering).  Reality itself is defined by the rules so be
careful with that logic stuff.

Studge

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #378
*******************************