From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose Thu Apr 30 15:23:15 EDT 1992
Article 5317 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Games (was Re: Categories: bounded or graded?)
Message-ID: <1992Apr28.230052.7394@spss.com>
Date: 28 Apr 92 23:00:52 GMT
References: <1992Apr27.173513.33215@spss.com> <1992Apr28.173231.11604@cs.ucf.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Apr28.173231.11604@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu 
(Thomas Clarke) quotes Bernard Suits as writing:

>"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory
>goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules  
>prohibit use of more efficient in favor of less efficient means [constitutive  
>rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such  
>activity [lusory attitude].  I also offer the following simpler and, so to  
>speak, more portable version of the above:  playing a games is the voluntary  
>attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."

OK, the circularity was yours, not Suits's!  

Still, I love messing up definitions.  This one seems to apply pretty well
to the stock market.  There's a specific goal (making money), set rules,
more efficient means like insider trading are prohibited, and the rules are
accepted to facilitate the trading.  Dancing a square dance fits, too.
Running a research institution.  (Goal: increase of knowledge; rules:
scientific method; prohibited efficiencies: plagiarism, espionage;
rules accepted to facilitate goal.)

It's no reflection on Suits to say that his definition has holes in it.
Defining a word like "games", for both Wittgenstein's reasons and 
Prof. Minsky's, is tricky.


