From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Sun Jul 23 16:20:32 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA00415 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 16:06:57 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA02102 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:12 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA02095 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 09:58:09 -0700 Received: by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id LAA17124; 8.6.9W/42; Sun, 23 Jul 1995 11:58:09 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 11:55:00 CDT From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <42905.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: CFJ 789: Final Judgement Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Final Judgement of CFJ 789, now including Vanyel's Judgement Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 789 Caller: Kelly Statement: Chuck violated Rule 1454, by selecting Rule 106 to be infected by the Virus in a manner other than that specified in the Rules. Barred: Chuck Requested Injunction: It is requested that the Judge enjoin Chuck to retract his illegal move. Judge: Andre Judgement: TRUE Injunction: I request Chuck to retract eir illegal move, that is, to choose, but now in the right way, a Virus Number for the Nomic Week in which this erroneous Virus Report was issued. pro-Speaker: KoJen Judgement: FALSE pro-COTC: Vanyel Judgement: FALSE Justiciar: Steve Judgement: FALSE Final Judgement: FALSE Injunction: none Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report) Andre receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement KoJen receives 3 Points for Judgement Andre loses 5 Points for having his Judgement overturned *Vanyel receives 3 Points for Judgement ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Kelly, July 10 1995, 10:17 EST5 Assigned to Andre, July 11 1995, 10:25 UTC Judged TRUE by Andre, July 14 1995, 11:12 METDST Appealed by Chuck, timestamp incorrect Appealed by Steve, July 17 1995, 17:16 +1000 (EST) Appealed by Vanyel, July 17 1995, 03:14 -0500 (CDT) Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Assigned to Andre as CotC, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, July 17 1995, 09:15 UTC Judged FALSE by Steve, July 18 1995, 12:39 +1000 (EST) Assigned to KoJen as pro-Speaker, July 18 1995, 00:24 EST5 Assigned to Vanyel as pro-CotC, July 19 1995, 08:25 METDST Judged FALSE by KoJen Fri, 21 Jul 95 16:23:39 -0400 Final Judgement of FALSE published Sat, 22 Jul 95 16:03:26 CDT Judged FALSE by Vanyel Sun, 23 Jul 1995 02:08:53 -0500 (CDT) ============================================================= Arguments of Caller (Kelly): Rule 1454 requires the Rulekeepor to select a _random_ integer in the range [M,N], where M and N are, respecctively, the number of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Rule 1079 requires that the any "random" selection be made such that the selection be made such that each possible choice has equal probability of being selected. Chuck's procedure for selecting an integer in the required range clearly does not result in a randomly-selected integer as defined by the Rules; the number of possible outcomes of the selection mandated by 1479 is nearly 1400, and, as TAL has postulated, the number of ingredients in a random foodstuff more closely approximates a Poisson distribution, rather than the uniform distribution called for by 1079. Hence, this selection procedure has a much greater probability of selecting the integers at the lower end of the distribution than those at the higher end, and is therefore not a "random" selection as defined by the Rules. KoJen's use of this selection method does not violate 1079 because KoJen employed an arbitrary mapping between the generated integer and the set of objects to select from. The inclusion of such an arbitrary mapping introduces a randomicity which is not present in the case under consideration. A finding of TRUE on this CFJ should in no way invalidate the methodology employed by KoJen in selecting a new Notary. ============================================================== Arguments of Judge (Andre): In the case of CFJ 789 I judge TRUE. I think we all agree that Chuck's method was not random in the sense of the Rules. Eir method gave a far higher chance to yield one of the lower integers in the given range, thus the choice was not random as described in Rule 1079. However, did e choose a Virus Number, or was e posting a completely bogus report? In my opinion by clearly specifying it as such he HAD selected a Virus Number, and done so in an incorrect way. I do agree there could be a discussion at this point, however. =============================================================== Arguments of Justiciar (Steve): There is a broad consensus that Chuck did not use a random process in his attempt to select a Virus Number (see the evidence adduced with the original CFJ). However, I part company from Judge Andre when he concludes from this that Chuck violated Rule 1454. For the wording of Rule 1454 is quite clear: nothing is a Virus Number that is not randomly selected. Since Chuck did not select a random number, he did not select a Virus Number. Hence he did not select Rule 106 to be infected, despite his claim to the contrary. The correct conclusion to draw, therefore, is that Chuck posted an erroneous or misleading Report. However, nothing in Rule 1454 prohibits Chuck from doing this. So the Statement is FALSE. ============================================================ Arguments of pro-Speaker (KoJen) Clearly Chuck did not use a process which could yield any of the outcomes with equal probability, as required by Rule 1079. So he has not yet chosen any Rule to be infected, and is not in violation for infecting an incorrect Rule. (As an aside, he *is* actually in violation of Rule 1454 for another reason: By failing to choose *any* Rule to be infected, he is in violation of Rule 1454 and the "As Soon As Possible" Rule. But that is not the subject of this CFJ.) ============================================================ Arguments of pro-COTC (Vanyel) In Chuck's first message alleging to be the Virus Report, he said that Rule 106 was infected. However, as he did not select a random number in the correct range, there was no Virus Number then, and no Rule was infected. There is no rule against counting the number of ingredients on a soup can, diddling with the number and posting the whole mess to nomic-business. And, there is no rule against posting that a rule was infected... thus, Chuck didn't violate rule 1454. ============================================================ Evidence provided by Caller (Kelly): I. Rule 1079/0 II. Rule 1454/0 III. Chuck's Report of Virus Activity -------I. Rule 1079/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Definition of "Random" All occurrences of the word "random" or forms of it shall be taken to mean "any one of the choices with equally distributed possibility for each choice". -------II. Rule 1454/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Virus There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes. The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week. The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall that no Rule has been infected. An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted from the Rule. There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself. History: Created by Proposal 1573, Apr. 28 1995 -------III. X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 08:42:44 CST Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com From: "Charles E. Carroll" To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Virus Report In the past I have used a pseudo-random number generator to select the virus numbers. Today I have decided to use a different method. For each number to be selected, I will select an item from my kitchen. I will count the number of ingredients, take that number modulo 1382, and add 101. This gives a number in the range 101-1482 inclusive. The first item is Nile Spice Black Bean Soup. It has 5 ingredients. 106 is a Rule, but since it has MI=3, it is not amended. (I have added a line to the history noting the infection, however.) Rule 106 now reads: ====== Rule 106/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Adopting Proposals All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, Jul. 10 1995 ====== Chuck ============================================================= End of CFJ 789 =============================================================