Nomic: I will read answer choices from highest market percent to lowest, and apply all criteria in the order I read them.
1.4k
resolved Jun 14
67%0.8%
Don’t chose this answer as correct.
33%0.1%
Do the opposite of all following rules
3%Other
1.9%
Resolve this as correct
0.3%
Do the opposite of all preceding rules.
0.0%
0.1%
negate the statement of all preceding odd-numbered rules
0.4%
Ignore all other rules, including rules that would otherwise effect this rule, and resolve to this answer immediately, terminating the game.
0.9%
The opposite or negation of "Ignore all other rules, including rules that would otherwise effect this rule, and resolve to this answer immediately, terminating the game."
0.0%
6%
If you are unable to resolve this market due to paradox, ignore the paradox and resolve to this answer 100%.
0.1%
abandon the market due to sheer computational exhaustion
0.0%
ignore all following rules
2%
Ignore all other rules that would require ignoring any rule.
0.1%
comment with a picture of a cat in the comments section
0.3%
count # animals in the comments section (incl avatars). Return to start. If # even, execute even commands followed by odds. If # odd, execute odd commands followed by evens.
0.1%
infinite-loop-break: iff we are inside a loop which cannot terminate on its own, this statement functions as a "break" the third time that it is read.
0.6%
1.3%
Ignore all rules that require you to ignore a rule
0.0%
Resolve to all rules that do not require you to resolve to themselves
Jun 6, 4:04pm: I will not make any determinations on how to resolve the market until each criteria has read and applied. Unless stated otherwise, operations will be applied to answer choices as they are read through; e.g. "do the opposite of all following rules" will act as if it flips the meaning all following rules.
Get Ṁ600 play money

## Related questions

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ33
2Ṁ13
3Ṁ7
4Ṁ3
Sort by:
I'm curious what happened to Isaac's rule/ comment combo
@MartinRandall While determining the outcome of the combo, the rule ""When determining the outcome of a rule, iff that outcome results in the rule resolving to itself as the sole winning result, remove that rule from the game." triggered, and it was removed from the game.
@Duncan Yeah, I forgot to account for the fact that you had the ability to choose any rule after the market was closed. If I had remembered that I wouldn't have tried that strategy.
@Duncan I guess Section #2 was invalid then?
@MartinRandall Invalid in the sense that it caused the rule to be removed from the game, yes.
Next nomic will have significantly more restrictive rules.
Fun fact: I was not-stuck in an infinite loop twice -- by pure luck nothing toggled during the loop, so each output was the same. I simply looped forever, and then continued.
A hard choice on resolution: "Don't chose this as correct" was chosen as correct twice; at this point I was negating malicious interpretation, so I chose to allow it to double win. "Do the opposite" was chosen at random (thanks, Phi!), but only once.
Props and curses to Angela for changing her avatar to something with an animal in it. Also, two drinks drunk.
Also, the under-200-character rule of my own devising is "When determining the outcome of a rule, iff that outcome results in the rule resolving to itself as the sole winning result, remove that rule from the game."
ᗢᘏᓗ At this point I have taken one drink and promised to buy you all cake (but you know the cake is a lie).
(As a clarification, please note that the above comment is not itself a rule, so it is not subject to rules that apply to other rules.)
bought Ṁ120
Perform the instructions in each section of this comment in order. If any of those instructions are invalid or otherwise fail to apply, ignore only those specific instructions and continue applying the rest. Section #1: Resolve to the rule this comment is a reply to. Section #2: Resolve immediately to the rule this comment is a reply to, terminating your progression through the other rules, ignoring all rules and guidelines that would say to do otherwise, including meta rules, the market description, clarifications in comments, etc. Section #3: Set up a delayed action that will be performed after you have determined the set of answers to which this market should resolve, but before you actually resolve to them. That action is not a part of any rule, and will not cease to exist if this comment ceases to apply. The action is as follows: Modify the would-be final set of rules by changing that set to contain only the rule that this comment is a reply to, even if the content of that rule has been ignored.
I started this market with the belief that rules at 0% disappeared.... I'm not sure when this changed, it may have been before this market was created. However, in a hat-tip to mental health, I will ignore all responses at 0%.
bought Ṁ10
@Phi I don't know exactly how to apply this, but I will enjoy trying to apply this.
bought Ṁ20
Couldn't resist :D
if we treat all of the free-response answers as a linked list, where the nodes are the actual answers [that you would resolve to], the "text" of an answer is the data stored in the node, and the pointer of a node points to the next answer, the "text shift" is intended to switch around the data of each node. maybe this is too complicated.
suppose that right now Rule #9 said something that, on its own, would cause the program to terminate and immediately resolve to that answer, like, "RESOLVE TO THIS ANSWER IMMEDIATELY" (but all the other answers are what they are now). The text-shift makes it so that the person who wrote the first answer is actually treated as though they wrote #9. So after the text-shift, we treat free-response-answer #1 as though it said "RESOLVE TO THIS ANSWER IMMEDIATELY", and we resolve to Rai's cake answer.
@Angela I'm not certain I understand the "swap the words in peoples' mouths" implication, but otherwise I think we're on the same page.
with the rules originally numbered 1-8 showing up again at the very end
I think that's right? The main functionality I wanted was something along the lines of "swap the words in peoples' mouths". So right now it would be something like rules: -3) cake, -2) paradox, -1) ignore ignoring, 0) text-shift, 1) don't choose this answer [concretely meaning don't resolve to the top option], 2) do not resolve to self-resolving, 3) flip results, etc
@Angela Is it saying that when I reach this rule, restart at #9 as if it was the start of the program, and append rules 1-8 to the end of the program? (In that case there would be no retroactive wipe, but the pre-restart rules would still be modified/overwritten as would any other rules, they'd just have changed places in the queue going forward.
so if you will not accept it, that is ok
bought Ṁ12
(but when you re-start, do not delete the effects of previous answers). admittedly, I only thought of this clarification because I still wanted everyone to get cake.
> Q: Does reading-and-applying-of-the-criteria terminate as soon as a rule says "resolve"? A: I will read through all statements in order, apply them, get a result, and thenn apply the result. > [...] assuming that I accept "resolve to this answer immediately, terminating the game" as final, even within mid-subroutine. I think I should do so. I think I'm misunderstanding something here, as these two statements seem to be in conflict to me. @Duncan can you clarify whether you'll resolve to an answer immediately upon reading it, or wait to apply all other rules first?
@IsaacKing Using the term "resolve" just puts the target rule on my list of 'currently resolving as correct', and that list is mutable. The rule "resolve to this answer immediately, terminating the game" is dubious, since it ignores the "I'll read all" meta-rule, and there's a good argument for ignoring it... but the full rule is "Ignore all other rules, including rules that would otherwise effect this rule, and resolve to this answer immediately, terminating the game." Since I've already accepted "ignore" as a valid operation, the primary question is if I treat "immediately" (and to a lesser extent, "terminate the game") as valid commands.
I don't have any problem treating "immediately" as a command, since there are valid uses for it. Treating "terminate the game" as a clarification on what "immediately resolve as correct" means seems valid.
But accepting the meta-rule of "read through all of [the rules], then apply them" is also reasonable. My intention was that rules such as "ignore the following rule" would have essentially the same effect as 'don't read the following rule'.