Monday, October 03, 2011

Proposal: Why must BlogNomic make this mistake so often!

Reached quorum 8 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Oct 2011 02:35:21 UTC

In the rule “Critical Acclaim”, replace “positive” with “nonnegative”. Then set everyone’s Acclaim to the value it would have if the same change had been made in the proposal that originally created the rule.

Zero is not a positive integer. “Positive integer defaulting to zero” is kind-of meaningless, so we have to recalculate Acclaim using a form of arithmetic in which zero is actually a number.

OK, so it was funny once, but when it happens dynasty after dynasty, it gets a bit old…

Comments

Josh: he/they

03-10-2011 13:37:50 UTC

imperial I don’t care enough to care about this.

Kevan: he/him

03-10-2011 13:39:43 UTC

for Maybe we just need “zero is considered to be a positive number” in the appendix, if this is how most people are playing it.

ais523:

03-10-2011 13:44:57 UTC

I suspect that would break just as much in the other direction. People tend to use it inconsistently, or just not to think about it.

Wooble:

03-10-2011 13:46:24 UTC

for  arrow

Maybe we just need “all numbers are equivalent to a suffusion of yellow” in the appendix.

bateleur:

03-10-2011 15:18:06 UTC

for Yup, I’m with ais523. There’s no need to make the problem worse. Just fix it and hopefully everyone will remember for next time.

Prince Anduril:

03-10-2011 17:54:28 UTC

against

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_number

It’s an interesting one. In actual fact, 0 can be both positive and negative as ‘+0’ isn’t nonsense, just uninteresting. Equally, 0 can be a negative number. The only consequence of this is that we have a precedent of being able to use a number which *could* be negative. However, since the rule states that it ‘must be a positive integer’, this is not a possibility in this case.

However, the ‘defaulting to 0’ bit is unnecessary, since rule 3.3.1 states:

“If a game variable has no defined starting value for new Artists, or for existing Artists upon the variable’s creation, then that starting value is zero (for numerical variables)”

Wooble:

03-10-2011 18:16:46 UTC

Prince Anduril: from your linked article: “A real number is said to be positive if it is greater than zero, and negative if it is less than zero.” The fact that -0, 0, and +0 are all the same number doesn’t mean that zero is ever positive.

I suspect that in every case we should just use “natural number” instead of “positive integer” or “nonnegative integer”; at least it’s *definitively* ambiguous :)

scshunt:

03-10-2011 18:47:41 UTC

for

Bucky:

03-10-2011 20:00:07 UTC

for

omd:

04-10-2011 01:27:11 UTC

arrow

Klisz:

04-10-2011 03:42:02 UTC

for  arrow

Prince Anduril:

04-10-2011 07:31:13 UTC

Wooble. But we are talking about integers, not real numbers. They are very different things.

Purplebeard:

04-10-2011 12:25:10 UTC

To the best of my knowledge, the number 0 has no sign (and therefore is neither positive nor negative), even though it might be useful to treat it as if it did for certain applications.

Anyway, the Appendix specifies that the default form for variables is to use nonnegative integers with 0 for the starting value. There’s no reason to state this explicitly in a dynastic rule.

By the way, this right-brain dynasty should totally allow Artists to have irrational or imaginary Acclaim.

ais523:

04-10-2011 13:24:47 UTC

Hey, can I arrow Purplebeard’s comment? No? Aww…

lilomar:

04-10-2011 16:40:12 UTC

for

Wooble:

04-10-2011 18:47:12 UTC

Prince Anduril: the integers are a subset of the real numbers.

Darknight: he/him

05-10-2011 00:54:36 UTC

imperial