Subject:
|
Re: FS-Pirate & Town Sets Mint In Sealed Boxes/Pack
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:29:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
501 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > > Hello Todd
> > > Sorry you see it that way, but i don't.
> >
> > Paul, I suggest you let it go. In the larger scheme of things, you're right.
>
> Paul certainly is right: SBA's and OBO's are the same thing.
No they're not! Not in the LUGNET namespace they aren't... They're named
differently, and thus are not in the same equivalence class when partitioned
by the partitioning function "allowed in market.buy-sell-trade?". The fact
that this is their only difference is interesting but insufficient to assert
equality under this partitioning, which is, after all, the partitioning of
interest.
> > But you're not going to convince Todd, he's constructed what he feels is a
> > very reasonable justification for a definition that allows single round
> > sealed bid auctions to be treated as straight sales.
Sorry, omitted "... are treated, that is, they are allowed in
market.buy-sell-trade when properly named, using a name that does not have
auction in it." at the end of the last sentence. Error in communication, it
was what I meant to say but not what I said. Mea culpa.
> No, I haven't.
I apologise for implying that you did say that, without the qualification I
omitted, you are correct, sir, you did not. With it, of course, you have.
> In an SBA, each potential buyer submits exactly one offer and there are no
> (shouldn't be any) solicitations for counter-offers. The seller then chooses
> a buyer based on the price. The winning buyer has influenced the price.
>
> Similarly, in an OBO, each potential buyer submits an offer and there are no
> (shouldn't be any) solicitations for counter-offers. The seller then chooses
> a buyer based on the price. The winning buyer has influenced the price.
This demonstrates that they are indeed identical (which wasn't in dispute I
don't think), except for their names, and the implication that they thus
partition differently.
> In one view of the world, auctions are anything and everything that's labeled
> "auction." In another view of the world, auctions are the things that are
> auctions in principle -- regardless of name.
Granted. It is an interesting question of linguistics and epistimology to
investigate how much the name of a thing influences our perception of its
nature. Clearly it does here on LUGNET. That's not necessarily a bad thing,
mind you, but it is interesting.
I've been waiting a long time for the chance to trot this one out:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell
as sweet. So Romeo would were he not Romeo called retain that dear
perfection which he owes without that title."
- Romeo and Juliet
I find it amazing (but accept) that two things which differ only in name get
different treatment here, refuting Juliet... at least in this realm :-)
> p.s. I'm not stubborn, just persistent.
That's the 43rd time you've denied you're stubborn, you know. Don't you ever
give up? :-) Stubbornness is a virtue.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
