Re: [s-d] [s-b] black corp what?

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well then. First I want to say that I agree with BP that changes can not be
equated appropriately across two non-identical nomics.

But I don't think it is possible to transfer mack across the nomic gap
between B and C, so your transaction fails anyhow.

Perhaps the first thing we should notice in submitting such transactions is
that Transactions, I believe, are part of the game state, and so if it fails
in B Nomic it fails in C Nomic, and if it succeeds in C Nomic it succeeds in
B Nomic. Then to include the name of the game in a transaction will make it
impossible to decide if it fails or succeeds. Perhaps most of the actions we
have taken since the creation of C Nomic have similarly been invalid in C
Nomic, IF it has not the same Objects.

Another possibility for the state of C Nomic:
Now I'm thinking that since rule 83 created a nomic, it did so outside the
scope of B Nomic. To create a Nomic takes no more than a will to do so, and
the will came from our creating rule 83. Then C Nomic is completely separate
(besides rule 83's identical changes clause) and not governed by the Game
Object rule of B Nomic. This gives me the idea that rule 83 could have
actually succeeded in its creation of identical Game Objects, because they
were created at the same time that C Nomic's rule 2 was created. They were
created simultaneously with the only rule that could have stopped their
creation.

Now do you think this possibility is valid? I do. Now to determine the
implications of it:

Going with this foundation, I'd say that identical nomics have to have the
same business/discussion forums, right? That's part of what a nomic is. This
clears up ALL the problems we've been having, except for all of our
transactions that would succeed if "the name of this game is C Nomic" is
true and fail otherwise. Charles' transaction would have been so, if
he could have transferred mack to something outside of the nomic in which it
is contained. So be careful with your transactions folks, there is a
possibility of paradox, and if that happens we'll just have to ask a Priest
to decide it for us.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Well done, Charles! I was going to make the exact same point, but much less
> eloquently, earlier, but for some reason didn't get around to writing it
> out
> :-D
>
> It's impossible to make an identical "change" to two gamestates if these
> gamestates are not identical to begin with. It all becomes a matter of how
> you define change: in terms of what is lost, in terms of what is gained, in
> terms of a start or endpoint, etc.
>
> BP
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Charles Schaefer <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
>
> > 2008/10/6, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > Well, if we're going on the assumption that C Nomic isn't already full
> of
> > > copies of the Objects in B Nomic, what if something is legal in one
> nomic
> > > and illegal in another? Now that the business forum is a business forum
> > for
> > > both B and C nomic, I think I'll use it:
> >
> >
> > I'm going to operate on another possible assumption: that C Nomic exists
> > full of objects which are exact duplicates of their B Nomic counterparts.
> >
> > But first, regardless of what happens with my transaction, I transfer all
> > of
> > my mack to Votes For Sale, Inc.
> >
> > I submit the following transaction:
> > START TRANSACTION
> > The name of this game is C Nomic.
> > I do the following action 100 times: As Da Boss, I cause Votes For Sale,
> > Inc. (A C Nomic corporation) to transfer all of it's mack to Votes For
> > Sale,
> > Inc. (A B Nomic Corporation).
> > FINISH TRANSACTION
> >
> > But why? Rule 4E83 says that "Any change to the gamestate of one of these
> > nomics happens simultaneously in the other one."
> >
> > Scenario 1: Causing VFS (B Nomic Branch) to gain mack causes its C Nomic
> > branch to gain the corresponding amount of mack. The transaction results
> in
> > me multiplying my mack holdings by 2^100.
> > Scenario 2: Causing VFS (B Nomic Branch) to lose mack causes its *C*
> Nomic
> > branch to lose the corresponding amount of mack. I am now bankrupt (maybe
> > the C Nomic Congress will bail me out for submitting a subprime
> > transaction).
> > Scenario 3: It cannot be determined how much mackerel I would have if
> this
> > succeeds, therefore the transaction fails.
> > Scenario 4: C Nomic never had any points, or a VFS corporation. The
> > transaction fails.
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss