Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[grarrrg]

To be clear, to those saying that if you have 3 you also have 2, right now I have 7 hit points. Does that make me disabled, because I also have 0?

Zero apples would be no apples, and since I obviously have some apples, then I cannot have zero apples.
So 7hp is not disabled.

[Jormengand]

Zero apples would be no apples, and since I obviously have some apples, then I cannot have zero apples.
So 7hp is not disabled.

"But two checks is no more than two checks, and since I obviously have more than two checks, then I cannot have two checks.
So 3 successes does not win the case."

Yeah no I didn't think so. Do numbers include all higher numbers, or don't they?

[Nifft]

What's happening here is slightly more subtle than that. Most human societies have a convention that in many circumstances we say the strongest thing we can. So one doesn't say "I have 2 apples" if one has 3 apples, even though it is a true statement. Failing to obey conversational norms this way often leads to miscommunication. However, I essentially agree with your general point, but it isn't just about addressing v number as a quantity.

You are running a store, and at the store you have three apples.

A customer calls you on the telephone.

"I want to buy two apples. Do you have two apples?"

Do you answer yes or no?


Obviously, you would answer yes.

[grarrrg]

"But two checks is no more than two checks, and since I obviously have more than two checks, then I cannot have two checks.
So 3 successes does not win the case."

You do understand the concept of Zero, yes? (and negative numbers too, they can be tricksy).
There is QUITE a lot of difference between "nothing vs. something" and "something vs. a different amount of something".


At this point, despite numerous examples, I must conclude you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yeah no I didn't think so.

Childish much?

[Jormengand]

You do understand the concept of Zero, yes? (and negative numbers too, they can be tricksy).
There is QUITE a lot of difference between "nothing vs. something" and "something vs. a different amount of something".


At this point, despite numerous examples, I must conclude you are being deliberately obtuse.

Zero is not nothing. Here is a set with zero in it: [0]. Here is a set with nothing in it: []. Zero is a number just like 1, 7, 2, 3, pi, e, or 5/6, and works just like them.

Do numbers include all higher numbers, or don't they?

[Nifft]

"But two checks is no more than two checks, and since I obviously have more than two checks, then I cannot have two checks.
So 3 successes does not win the case."

Yeah no I didn't think so. Do numbers include all higher numbers, or don't they?

We've spent almost a page showing you that positive quantities can include other positive quantities.


DOES THAT MEAN THEY INCLUDE NEGATIVE QUANTITIES?

No.

DOES THAT MEAN TRUE INCLUDES FALSE?

No.

DOES THAT MEAN 3 = 2?

No.

Please stop being obtuse.

Being obtuse is not acute.

[Jormengand]

We've spent almost a page showing you that positive quantities can include other positive quantities.

No, you have done no such thing. Are all creatures disabled all the time beacause 7 includes 0, or is Phoenix Wright having a bad day because 3 includes 2? You can't doublethink your way out of it.

[nailbudday]

On the other hand, you don't make these rolls immediately, you make them over the course of the trial. If you win the first two rolls, then you've won and the trial should theoretically just end then and there since you win as soon as you win 2 of the 3 rolls.

Edit: Also, Launch Bolt is another one of those 'material components that should've been focuses' spells. The spell launches a bolt in your hand as if it hand been launched from a crossbow; the material component is "the bolt to be launched". Curiously the spell Launch Items(from the same book no less) doesn't have this problem, and actually only has somatic components.

[Jormengand]

On the other hand, you don't make these rolls immediately, you make them over the course of the trial. If you win the first two rolls, then you've won and the trial should theoretically just end then and there since you win as soon as you win 2 of the 3 rolls.

That might be closer to a valid argument, but in practice the trial does call for all three rolls irrespective.

[JoshuaZ]

You are running a store, and at the store you have three apples.

A customer calls you on the telephone.

"I want to buy two apples. Do you have two apples?"

Do you answer yes or no?


Obviously, you would answer yes.

Yes, again context matters. That's a context where the customer has implicitly communicated that they don't care exactly how many apples you have.

[Bucky]

That might be closer to a valid argument, but in practice the trial does call for all three rolls irrespective.

Sure, but it doesn't matter what the third roll is because you've already won by the time it happens. They must be such sticklers for procedure that they finish the trial even though the verdict's already in or something.

[Jormengand]

Sure, but it doesn't matter what the third roll is because you've already won by the time it happens. They must be such sticklers for procedure that they finish the trial even though the verdict's already in or something.

That sounds dysfunctional on its own, to be quite honest.

[PallentisLunam]

To be clear, to those saying that if you have 3 you also have 2, right now I have 7 hit points. Does that make me disabled, because I also have 0?

Something about this question seems to bring out your inner coward, mainly because it shows that the 3-includes-2 interpretation is insane, and also dysfunctional in its own right.

Your current hit point total is an address not a quantity.

Probably shouldn't be calling people cowards.

We normally do, but they are not part of the grammar rules of English. Again, "at least" exists to define this textually, without context, and rules text is supposed to minimize needed context readings to prevent nonsense readings like this one from happening. It's a grammatically correct way to read the rule in the way that produces the dysfunction.

You are adding in an "exactly" that doesn't appear in the text while accusing the other side of adding in an "at least". Both are valid readings of the rule, one produces a dysfunction and the other does not.

[Jormengand]

Your current hit point total is an address not a quantity.

Nope. Quick check: does adding three to the number of hit points give you a value which is meaningfully three higher (the way that adding three to the number of bottles you're holding does and adding three to your phone number doesn't)? Yes: therefore it's an actual quality. You can have more or fewer hit points the way you can have more swords or fewer litres and can't have more or less phone number.

You are adding in an "exactly" that doesn't appear in the text while accusing the other side of adding in an "at least". Both are valid readings of the rule, one produces a dysfunction and the other does not.

Two means two, not at least two, in standard English.

[The Viscount]

Guys, can we all cool it with the name calling and distracting analogies?

The text states both sides must make three rolls. The text says that whoever wins two out of three wins the case. While I recognize that we have all had to become experts in RAW to analyze these, I don't think formal logic or mathematics arguments should be necessary to interpret the text.

Let's take the positions one at a time:
"A character who has won all three rolls has also won two out of the three." While this may technically be true in certain circumstances and wording, the authors of D&D books do not write in this way. Normal people when saying "two out of three" mean "two wins and one loss." In order for three wins to win the case the text would say "at least two" or "two or more."

"Could you not just stop when you have made two rolls and assume victory?" This would typically be described as "best of three" or "two successful rolls wins the case" or something similar. This is unfortunately not possible, as both sides make three rolls; no wiggle room there.

"Could you not simply throw the third roll, effectively 'taking 1'?" I don't know of any rules for this, so I don't think it possible. If it were possible, the opponent, presumably aware of the rules and the attempt, could likewise attempt to fail. In this case as by opposed check rules, the barrister with the higher modifier would win the set, which might mean that the more experienced lawyer is worse at taking a dive. That's pretty funny.

[PallentisLunam]

Nope. Quick check: does adding three to the number of hit points give you a value which is meaningfully three higher (the way that adding three to the number of bottles you're holding does and adding three to your phone number doesn't)? Yes: therefore it's an actual quality. You can have more or fewer hit points the way you can have more swords or fewer litres and can't have more or less phone number.

This is just moving addresses. You have X hit points. That's one address. You add three. You are now at the address X+3 hit points. You are always at one specific point on the counter. It's like a point moving on a line. The line of possible hit point values. When we say you have 30 hit points we mean the point on the line that says thirty and none of the other points. However when we say you must win 2 out of 3 attempts it's like marking a glass two thirds of the way up and pouring water into it. If you are over the mark then you can say that the glass is two thirds full.

Two means two, not at least two, in standard English.

As has been explained, all natural languages have some level of ambiguity. You are inserting an exactly into the text when it could just as easily be an at least. Standard English is not always as precise as it could be. Sometimes one grammatical construction can have two meanings.

[Nifft]

Your current hit point total is an address not a quantity.

IMHO it's more like:

"If you have 0 hp..." ==> "If you don't have any hit points left..."

It's a True/False gate where having any HP is one state, and having no HP is the other state.

True =/= False.

Probably shouldn't be calling people cowards.

You are absolutely correct about this, though.

[Jormengand]

IMHO it's more like:

"If you have 0 hp..." ==> "If you don't have any hit points left..."

I still don't get how zero is such a different number from two that the standard rules of English quail and distort around it, except for your personal convenience.

There's probably some other quantity check that uses a number greater than zero in a way that's clearly meant to be exact, but I'm not going to trawl around trying to find it.

This is just moving addresses. You have X hit points. That's one address. You add three. You are now at the address X+3 hit points. You are always at one specific point on the counter. It's like a point moving on a line. The line of possible hit point values. When we say you have 30 hit points we mean the point on the line that says thirty and none of the other points. However when we say you must win 2 out of 3 attempts it's like marking a glass two thirds of the way up and pouring water into it. If you are over the mark then you can say that the glass is two thirds full.

You could argue that distances aren't numbers but addresses in the same way. Or I could make a scale of how many glasses are on the table, and then the number of glasses on the table would just be an "Address". Or a scale of how many profession (barrister) checks I've won, at that.

[Nifft]

I still don't get how zero is such a different number from two that the standard rules of English quail and distort around it, except for your personal convenience.

Then you have zero understanding of English.

Or you have a decent understanding, but you're being deliberately obtuse.

If the latter is the case, please just stop.

[georgie_leech]

Yes Jorm, the natural numbers are treated differently than non-natural numbers like 0, -3, or pi by language. If someone tells you "you can't have alternate accounts" on a given website, 0 alternate accounts is an acceptable number of them; you won't get banned for there being a valid number to attach to your alternate account count.

[PallentisLunam]

You could argue that distances aren't numbers but addresses in the same way. Or I could make a scale of how many glasses are on the table, and then the number of glasses on the table would just be an "Address". Or a scale of how many profession (barrister) checks I've won, at that.

You could but in that case you are changing the nature of the situation. Hit points as presented in the rules are addresses. You can only ever have one hit point total at a time and that number is a set containing only that number and no others. However that is not the case with the rules for legal disputes. There is ambiguity in the construction of the rule which allows it a legitimate reading. No one is saying that you can't interpret the rules the way you are doing so. The way you are reading it is a valid English reading but not the only valid English reading. There is another reading equally valid and nondysfunctional. See "what this thread is for".

[Jormengand]

Yes Jorm, the natural numbers are treated differently than[...]0

I...

I don't know how to deal with being told that zero is treated differently from itself. Arguments like "The quantity of hit points you have is a location, not a quantity" and "Zero isn't actually a number at all" might have inured me to this line of illogic, but... what?

[Nifft]

I...

I don't know how to deal with being told that zero is treated differently from itself. Arguments like "The quantity of hit points you have is a location, not a quantity" and "Zero isn't actually a number at all" might have inured me to this line of illogic, but... what?

Natural Numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc.

Whole Numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, ... etc.


I guess you're using an alternative definition of Natural Numbers that includes 0, so you were able to successfully misunderstand.

How useful of you.

[Jormengand]

Natural Numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, ... etc.

Whole Numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, ... etc.


I guess you're using an alternative definition of Natural Numbers that includes 0, so you were able to successfully misunderstand.

How useful of you.

I'm using what I think of as the standard definition of natural numbers, but I still don't understand why if having three of something means that you have two of it, it doesn't mean you have zero of it. What's the DIFFERENCE between the natural numbers and the natural numbers that the natural numbers work differently from the natural numbers?

[Nifft]

I'm using what I think of as the standard definition of natural numbers, but I still don't understand why if having three of something means that you have two of it, it doesn't mean you have zero of it.

Yes, you have no bananas.

What's the DIFFERENCE between the natural numbers and the natural numbers that the natural numbers work differently from the natural numbers?

The difference is nothing.

[Jormengand]

Zero and nothing still aren't synonymous. If I have a speed of zero, it's because I'm not moving. If I have a speed of nothing, it's because I'm not sempiternal enough for speed to apply to me. Zero constitution and no constitution clearly don't mean the same thing either. A disabled creature has zero hit points, and a fireball has no hit points. Here is a set with 0 in it: [0]. Here is a set with nothing in it: [].

[Luccan]

I'm not a mathematician, but if 2 minutes of googling was accurate: Natural numbers either start at 1 or 0. As in, it depends who you ask and what you need it for.

[georgie_leech]

Zero and nothing still aren't synonymous. If I have a speed of zero, it's because I'm not moving. If I have a speed of nothing, it's because I'm not sempiternal enough for speed to apply to me. Zero constitution and no constitution clearly don't mean the same thing either. A disabled creature has zero hit points, and a fireball has no hit points. Here is a set with 0 in it: [0]. Here is a set with nothing in it: [].

First, yes, I was speaking of the Natural and Whole Number sets, as well as Integer and Real. And this confusion is why the 0 had to be "discovered/invented" rather than it being intuitively obvious. As soon as you have 0 of something in real life, it is far more the latter fireball case, where counting numbers no longer give a sensible answer to the question of "how many of X do you have?" When the numerical answer is 0, the phrasing is "I don't have any of X." Any quantity of X makes the statement "I don't have any of X" false. In that sense, language doesn't really handle the distinction between 0 and [null] very well.

Besides, mathematics treats them differently as well. For instance, basic arithmetic can divide by 1, 2, 3, etc. but not by 0. Division by negative numbers reverses the sign of the dividend. So I'm not sure "0 must be treated the same as other numbers" is a tenable position.

[Nifft]

Here is a set with 0 in it: [0]. Here is a set with nothing in it: [].

You posted a set with zero elements, and also a set with zero elements.

By your logic, that's the exact same thing, right?

C'mon Jorms, you can do better.

[Jormengand]

First, yes, I was speaking of the Natural and Whole Number sets, as well as Integer and Real. And this confusion is why the 0 had to be "discovered/invented" rather than it being intuitively obvious. As soon as you have 0 of something in real life, it is far more the latter fireball case, where counting numbers no longer give a sensible answer to the question of "how many of X do you have?" When the numerical answer is 0, the phrasing is "I don't have any of X." Any quantity of X makes the statement "I don't have any of X" false. In that sense, language doesn't really handle the distinction between 0 and [null] very well.

I would certainly agree that any quantity of X (apart from zero of it, which I would say is a quantity, just a quantity that happens to be zero) precludes zero, but then I would say that any quantity greater than two precludes two just as well as any lesser quantity does. If you say "How many of X do you have", and the number is zero, the answer you get in words could very well actually be "Zero", in which case we're right back to arguing whether or not three precludes zero. I'm aware it could also be "None", because the distinction between "I own zero swords" and "The ownership of swords doesn't apply to me" isn't really as tangible as the difference between a speed of zero and a lack of speed, or hit points and a lack of hit points, but in the case of being disabled the difference between zero and no hit points really is important.

You posted a set with zero elements, and also a set with zero elements.

By your logic, that's the exact same thing, right?

C'mon Jorms, you can do better.

What? No, the whole point is that zero and nothing are not equivalent.