Glisten

[Carlobrand]

Before we can try, we need other data - er, fictional data - to apply to the problem. For example, a rough guess as to how many ships are winging about in the Marches: how many free traders, subsidized merchants, and so forth. I think we could glean an estimate from GURPS, but not everyone is thrilled with their model of the scale of trade in the Marches. I don't know of any other system that offers info that might be helpful.

 

[aramis]

Occam's Razor applies to competing hypotheses about real facts, not to making up fictional facts. For fictional facts, whatever is ultimately decided will turn out to be the truth, however simple or however complicated.

It applies to any application of logic, including in the interpreting of others' fictional worlds.

If there are two solutions to the interpretation, the one that's simpler is usually the one to use.

 

[GypsyComet]

So. What lesson can we extract from this little dance?

-Don't revisit previously covered worlds, because you'll miss something that wasn't envisioned to be binding Canon when it was written and get flogged for it anyway?

-Fictional settings are harder to write for than the real world?

-Some people will never be happy?

-Beuller?

 

[rancke]

It applies to any application of logic, including in the interpreting of others' fictional worlds.

Not according to the description I googled.

" The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."​

If there are two solutions to the interpretation, the one that's simpler is usually the one to use.

Why? Why not the one that is most interesting or the one that provides the best gaming background or the one that allows for the greatest scope for further development?


Hans

 

[Aramais]

Monty Python....Call this a "gentle tease."

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

 

[Aramais]

So. What lesson can we extract from this little dance?

-Don't revisit previously covered worlds, because you'll miss something that wasn't envisioned to be binding Canon when it was written and get flogged for it anyway?

-Fictional settings are harder to write for than the real world?

-Some people will never be happy?

-Beuller?

You forgot "E: All of the above."

 

[rancke]

Monty Python....Call this a "gentle tease."

These boards are exactly the right place for an argument. We try to keep the arguments valid, and we don't charge for it. When we don't understand why anyone could possibly be interested in whatever argument they're having, we do the people involved the courtesy of realizing that they DO see a point, and leave them in peace to get on with it.


Hans

 

[Aramais]

These boards are exactly the right place for an argument. We try to keep the arguments valid, and we don't charge for it. When we don't understand why anyone could possibly be interested in whatever argument they're having, we do the people involved the courtesy of realizing that they DO see a point, and leave them in peace to get on with it.


Hans

Hans, you're arguing about the definition of Occam's Razor...in order to prolong an argument about how to deal with registration numbers of starships. If you will excuse me, my Python reference was carefully selected because that's the point of "Argument Clinic."

"Argument Clinic" also demonstrates "topic drift." And we certainly have drifted from asteroid belt habitations to license plate theory.

Speaking as a self-declared argumentative cur of a lawyer...well, be glad I was gentle.

 

[rancke]

Hans, you're arguing about the definition of Occam's Razor...in order to prolong an argument about how to deal with registration numbers of starships.

That's where you're wrong again. You do an amazing amount of jumping to conclusions about my motives. I have no particular agenda about the extension of the argument. I'm arguing about the definition of Occam's Razor because to the best of my knowledge and belief you used it wrongly (to support your argument about how to deal with registration numbers of starships).

If you will excuse me, my Python reference was carefully selected because that's the point of "Argument Clinic."

Well, in the interest of not prolonging that argument, I'll just say that I disagree with your opinion of the point of "Argument Clinic" and let it go at that.

"Argument Clinic" also demonstrates "topic drift." And we certainly have drifted from asteroid belt habitations to license plate theory.

We're more tolerant of topic drift here on CotI than on many other forums. But I would like to point out that I said that the licensing question deserved a thread of its own. I had planned to start a new thread, but before I got around to it, half a dozen people had already followed up in this thread. Including you. So I don't think you have any call to [perfectly innocuous verb meaning 'to poke fun at' that the censorship software thinks is a rude word] me about topic drift.

Speaking as a self-declared argumentative cur of a lawyer...well, be glad I was gentle.

I don't usually mind a bit of vigor in a debate. But I am grateful that you were gentle, because responding in kind to an un-gentle post is against the board rules, and I find it VERY hard to refrain from responding in kind. So thank you very much for your restraint, Greg.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

So. What lesson can we extract from this little dance? ...

Mostly that it's hard to resist a good waltz, I think, and it can be fun to watch. That, and that accidentally stepping on someone's toe is an occasional and unavoidable hazard of the dance.

At least it is for me. I seem to have two left feet in such things.

Now as I recall, before the music changed, the song was, "How to address the problem of the numbers," which was sung to the tune of, "Just how many ships are out here anyway?"

As I said, GURPS offers some data, but it does not apply easily outside of GURPS since their trade picture is a little different: they aren't faced with the Cr1000/dTon cap on cargo fees regardless of jump range. There are also some other little differences that may play a role, and I recall other issues coming up the last time they came up. Still it might give us a ballpark to work with, which we don't now have.

There are four dark blue "major" routes, I think 56 aqua "main" routes, about 260 green "intermediate" routes, about as many yellow "feeder" routes (they're hard to see), and about 173 red "minor" routes. (I might be off by a couple here or there.) Makes it roughly 50 to 100 million dTons weekly traffic. Seems like a lot. Les'see, estimated Marches pop around 375 billion - about 1 dTon per 4,000 to 8,000 pop per week. Someone else can figure if that's in the right neighborhood or way off - we can always scale from that estimate if needed.

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/File:Spinward_Marches_Sector.pdf

Description in the Wiki (http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Trade_map_key) says:

Red/minor route: served by between four and eight small liners (probably Type M Subsidized Liner or Type R Subsidized Merchant, or similar) and an equal number of free traders, with a general average of one ship per day entering or leaving each port. So, roughly 14 ships on these routes, about half free traders (or far traders) and about half the 400-600 dT ships. Note that I figure this route as having a bit more than twice the capacity needed: ships are averaging less than 50% full, so this is a route that needs subsidies or clever captains who know how to buy and sell to survive. Or, maybe there are fewer ships. Passenger service is negligible. 173 such routes: about 1200 free traders, as many 4-600 d-Tonners.

Yellow/feeder route: between four and eight larger freighters, with an equal number of smaller liners and free traders, with two to four ship per day leaving or entering port. So, roughly 28 to 56 ships on these routes with about 14-28 large freighters, 7-14-ish free traders (or far traders), 7-14-ish 400-600 dT ships. If we assume the large freighters prefer to run full and go with the lower quantity, I'm guessing they're 2-3000 dT. ~260 such routes: about 1800 free traders, as many 4-600 dTonners, about 3600 freighters in the 2-3000-ish ton range

Green/intermediate routes: "served by twenty to forty large freighters and a smaller number (not specified) of liners and free traders." "On average ten ships per day enter or leave port", so about 140 ships regularly serving this route, which is not adding up to "twenty to forty ... and a smaller number". I'm guessing ~30-40 free traders, ~30-40 400-600 tonners, maybe 70-ish large freighters. We could fiddle with that depending on the size of the freighters but then the ten-per-day goes by the wayside. We also have a problem: five times the shipping serving ten times the cargo. We can assume the large freighters are 4-6000 dT, but that means they're either different from the feeder freighters or the feeders run at half capacity. Probably best figure a range of everything from 2-10,000 or more, averaging about 5000. ~260 such routes: about 9000 free traders, as many 4-600 dTonners, about 18,000 freighters in the 2-10,000-ish ton range.

Aqua/main routes: served by "the very large mega-freighters," with "dozens of smaller freighters and liners." "There may be as many as 20 ships per day entering or leaving port," so about 280 ships regularly serving the route. We could double the Green numbers and still have 80% of the traffic served in "mega-freighters," which I'm going to guess are in the 200,000 dTon range - problem is we need about 14, and I would have expected some in an intermediary size class; of course, we can play with it a bit. Anyway, ~56 such routes: about 4000 free traders, as many 4-600 dTonners, about 8,000 freighters in the 2-10,000-ish ton range, about 800 megafreighters.

Blue/major routes: "A dozen mega-freighters and as many as 100 smaller ships regularly travel this route. There can be as many as 50 ships per day entering or leaving port." About 700 ships regularly serving the route. Again, a problem: three times the shipping serving ten times the cargo, but perhaps we're dealing with larger superfreighters, averaging closer to 500,000 dTons. I'll take the Aqua numbers and pop them up by 2.5, and assume larger superfreighters account for the added tonnage: ~150-200 free traders, ~150-200 400-600 tonners, maybe 3-400 large freighters, maybe 40-ish superfreighters. 4 such routes: about 700 free traders, as many 4-600 dTonners, about 1400 freighters in the 2-10,000-ish ton range, about 160 megafreighters. We make the assumption here that a route shipping 5 to 10 million dTons of cargo weekly has a fraction of a percent in the kind of trade that needs the services of a free trader or other small freighter.

So for the GURPS Marches, and with a lot of assumptions, we're guessing around 16,000-17,000 free traders, maybe as many 4-600 dTonners, about 31,000 large freighters of from 2000 dTons to maybe 10,000 dTons, and a bit less than a thousand megafreighters. Big numbers, but it seems to be where GURPS leans and might explain why the IN feels its worth putting several hundred capital ships in the sector.

 

[aramis]

[m;]Since the discussion is getting to the point of discussing the posters rather than the topic, thread closed.[/m;]

Take it to PM if you wish, gentlemen.

 

[rancke]

[m;]Since the discussion is getting to the point of discussing the posters rather than the topic, thread closed.[/m;]

I was going to make a post about this on the Citizen Information Center when I noticed that while the thread was declared closed, it wasn't locked, which makes it possible to discuss the closure itself. If this was deliberate, then I very much approve of this new practice.

Anyway, the discussion was not getting to the point of everybody discussing the posters. Two of us had drifted into doing that, and telling us to cut it out would have been entirely appropriate. But others were still discussing a legitimate topic. For example, Carlobrand posted some very interesting observations prior to you declaring the thread closed.

I'm going to start a new thread to follow up on the topic Carlobrand was dealing with.


Hans