From email@example.com Fri Dec 1 05:32:57 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [184.108.40.206]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA00199 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 05:32:56 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA19508 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 03:31:21 -0800 Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [220.127.116.11]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA19499 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 03:31:17 -0800 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-Id: <199512011131.DAA19499@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (18.104.22.168/16.2) id AA11090; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 12:30:13 +0100 Subject: OFF: CFJ 832 Judgement: TRUE To: email@example.com Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 12:30:13 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com Status: RO ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 832 Rule 1079 shall be interpreted such that the Dice-roll email server at firstname.lastname@example.org meets its requirements for randomness ====================================================================== Judge: Andre (defaulted) Ian (defaulted) Michael Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, Kelly, Marc, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, Pascal, Saltwater, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad, Wes, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Vanyel Barred: On Hold: favor 1005: KoJen Defaulted: Andre, Ian Effects: Andre gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement Andre is not anymore eligible to be chosen as a Judge until e requests to be eligible again (e has already requested such) Ian gains 3 Blots for defaulting on Judgement Ian is not anymore eligible to be chosen as a Judge until e requests to be eligible again Michael gains 5 Points for (extremely) speedy Judgement (2 1/2 hours!) ====================================================================== History: Called by Vanyel, 10 Nov 1995, 11:50 -0600 CST Assigned to Andre, 13 Nov 1995, 12:01 MET Defaulted by Andre, 13 Nov 1995, 12:01 MET Assigned to Ian, 22 Nov 1995, timestamp lost Defaulted by Ian, 29 Nov 1995 Assigned to Michael, 1 Dec 1995, 09:47 MET Judged TRUE by Michael, 1 Dec 1995, 11:14 GMT ====================================================================== Requested Injunction: If this CFJ is judged TRUE, I request that Rule 1079 be annotated with the above Statement. Arguments: The dice-roll server is run from a computer, and uses the randomnessroutines thereon, which though only pseudorandom, are close enough to random for our purposes. Furthermore, that server is not under the direct control of any Player, so there is no question of false randomness. ====================================================================== From email@example.com Fri Dec 1 09:34:02 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [22.214.171.124]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA02232 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:34:01 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id HAA06716 for nomic-discussion-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:32:15 -0800 Received: from swan.cl.cam.ac.uk (email@example.com [126.96.36.199]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA06025 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:30:24 -0800 Received: from guillemot.cl.cam.ac.uk (user mn200 (rfc931)) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.5) to cl; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:29:44 +0000 Received: by guillemot.cl.cam.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA04571; Fri, 1 Dec 95 15:29:32 GMT Date: Fri, 1 Dec 95 15:29:32 GMT Message-Id: <9512011529.AA04571@guillemot.cl.cam.ac.uk> From: Michael Norrish <Michael.Norrish@cl.cam.ac.uk> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: OFF: CFJ 832 Judgement: TRUE In-Reply-To: <199512011305.AAA15907@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> References: <199512011131.DAA19499@desiree.teleport.com> <199512011305.AAA15907@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com Status: RO Steve Gardner writes: > I am surprised that Judge Michael has declined to issue an > Injunction annotating R1079, however, since that was evidently the > point of the CFJ. Perhaps he had in mind Kelly's recent warning > about Annotations which could be falsified by changes to things > other than the Rules. Or perhaps his actual Judgement and Injunction > just got lost? They did rather. :-) In case Andre is unable to publish them in time to satisfy the high demand I perceive exists for my reasons and arguments, I include the message I sent to Andre: > Judgment: TRUE > Injunction: As requested by the caller, rule 1079 shall be annotated > with the above statement. > Argument: Given the evidence presented by the caller (which I have no > reason to doubt), it is clear that the dice-server will > serve to choose one of all the possible choices with equal > probability. The dice-server apparently uses a random number > generator, which means that it will effectively cycle through a series > of numbers in the given range. This means that, given the computer's > state, there will be a probability of one that the next number in the > (deterministic) cycle will be chosen, and zero for all other numbers. > However, the fact that we can not determine the machine's internal > state, and the fact that we "share" this machine with the rest of the > Internet, together mean that we have no way of determining what the > machine's internal state is. Therefore, this Judge claims that the > choice will be made from among all the possible choices with > reasonably close to equal probability. Michael.