Index ← 3894 CFJ 3895 3896 → text
===============================  CFJ 3895  ===============================

      I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Cuddlebeam

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam:                             25 Jan 2021 23:04:59
Assigned to Aris:                                 31 Jan 2021 20:19:26
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             03 Feb 2021 21:49:42

==========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

In R2577, we have: "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. When a
rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets
that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the
nearest natural number after all other calculations."

So, a reasonable interpretation is that if I attempt to transfer 0 cards,
it's successful and transfers 1 - it's rounded up, because 0 isn't a
natural number.

Or is it? Hi, VSauce here.

Yup, this all relies on the definition of "natural number" that we decide
to take. Is it all whole positive numbers except zero? Or including zero?
The big conundrum that we got up our pants here is that we have no explicit
precedent on this as far as I'm aware. And there is no clear consensus in
the real world on this either:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html


Caller's Evidence:

On 1/25/2021 3:04 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Aris to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from ATMunn to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Falsifian to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from G. to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Gaelan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from grok to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Jason to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Joe to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from JTAC to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Lucidiot to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Murphy to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Nathan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from nix to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Noah to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from omd to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from R. Lee to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Shy Owl to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Trigon to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Ubercrow to myself
> 
> If I have more than 10 Victory Cards, I then do the following:
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.

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

Judge Aris's Arguments:

The caller's arguments and evidence do an excellent job
of explaining the situation, so I won't go over it again here.

Players have raised three objections to CuddleBeam's actions.
If any of them is correct, this CFJ is FALSE. First, "I attempt
to transfer" could not count as a valid announcement of
transference. Second, CuddleBeam could lack a method for
performing the transfer. Third, 0 could be a natural number,
causing eir 0 asset transfers not to be rounded up to 1.

1. Attempts to Transfer

CuddleBeam said, for each other player, "I attempt to transfer
0 cards from  to myself". Someone, somewhere,
asked if this worked. Might have been on the Discord, but I
honestly don't recall. I find that, by the plain meaning of
"attempt", saying "I attempt to do X" means "If I can do X,
I do X".

I conclude that the objection to the word "attempt" is spurious.

2. Methods for the Transfer

CuddleBeam cites Rule 2577, "Asset Actions", which says in
part, "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful." However,
this does not specify a method. Rule 2125,"Regulated Actions",
says in part:

  If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
  from being performed except as described within it, including by
  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
  within it.

While that provision is about as clear as mud, it does
say that the method for performing an action needs to be
specified. Saying generally that attempts are successful does
not provide a method.

The only way I can read the Rule 2577 provision is as a
clarification of the sentence stating that an asset's owner
can transfer it by announcement. Or the statement is completely
ineffective. Which of those is true is outside the scope of this
case, but it is certainly true that there was no method given
for CuddleBeam to transfer 0 assets from other players to emself.

I conclude that the objection that CuddleBeam's action lacked a
method is valid.

3. Natural Numbers

I now reach the objection raised by the caller in eir arguments.
Is 0 a natural number? CuddleBeam relied on the following provision
of Rule 2577, "Asset Actions":

  When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an
  amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified
  amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other
  calculations.

If 0 is not a natural number, the provision would round
transfers of 0 assets up to 1, and CuddleBeam relies on this
behavior. However, e is incorrect.

I'll start off by citing Rule 2509, "Agoran Numbers", which says
in part:

  If a switch is defined as being associated with a specified set of
  numbers (a numerical switch), then the possible values for that
  switch are the numbers in that set. In particular, a natural or
  integer switch is a switch with possible values the non-negative
  integers or all integers, respectively.

This implies very strongly that the numbers in the set of natural
numbers are the non-negative integers. In fact, it comes about as
close to stating that fact as it could without actually doing so.

Even if the other rules did not lead me to this conclusion,
I would still reach it. It is consistent with the common sense
interpretation of Rule 2577, which is clearly written on the
assumption that 0-asset transfers are a no-op. Furthermore,
although there is by no means universal agreement, is also
consistent with the most common standards used in other
jurisdictions I checked. 0 is used as the base for the version
of the Peano axioms found on Wikipedia. Perhaps more authoritatively,
it is also the definition used in the ISO 80000-2 standard.

I conclude that the objection that attempts to transfer 0 assets
are not rounded up because 0 is already a natural number
is valid.

4. Conclusion

Two out of the three objections I reviewed were valid. Specifically,
there is no method for CuddleBeam to transfer 0 assets, and even
if e could do so, eir transfer would not be rounded up.

Accordingly, I rule FALSE.


Judge Aris's Evidence

Rule 2125/12 (Power=3)
Regulated Actions

  An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
  limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2)
  that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would
  succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify
  information for which some person bound by that body of law is
  required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.

  If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
  from being performed except as described within it, including by
  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
  within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it
  does not regulate.


Rule 2509/2 (Power=2)
Agoran Numbers

  A "number" is considered to refer to a real number, unless
  otherwise explicitly specified.  A "number of (items)", where
  (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a
  non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.

  If a switch is defined as being associated with a specified set of
  numbers (a numerical switch), then the possible values for that
  switch are the numbers in that set. In particular, a natural or
  integer switch is a switch with possible values the non-negative
  integers or all integers, respectively. If a limit is further
  defined, the possible values are the numbers of the set within the
  specified limits.

  If 0 is in the specified values for a numerical switch and no
  default value is otherwise specified, 0 is the default value for
  that switch.

  If the rules describe mathematical operations to be used in
  flipping an instance of a numerical switch, the operations are
  interpreted as having common-sense mathematical application to
  determine that instance's resulting value. For example,
  "increasing a switch instance by M" is equivalent to "flipping a
  switch instance from its current value N to the value N+M". If the
  specified mathematical operation would result in a value outside
  that switch's defined set, the flipping CANNOT be performed, rules
  to the contrary notwithstanding.


Rule 2577/6 (Power=3)
Asset Actions

  An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
  subject to modification by its backing document. Attempts to
  destroy no assets are successful. An indestructible asset is one
  defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be destroyed
  except as explicitly specified by its backing document; any other
  asset is destructible.

  For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for that
  asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an
  entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.

  For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed
  from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity
  is to destroy it from that entity's possession.

  For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from
  entity B to entity A.

  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
  by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
  backing document. Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. A
  fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and
  CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

  When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an
  amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified
  amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other
  calculations.

==========================================================================