This is the first time I have received such a report. Some interesting states are reported here hence my questions.

1. I note that for some reason a bilateral state of war does not exist between the CIA and FET. A similar relationship exists between FET and the HLQ. Is this an error in reporting?

2. I also not that a number of groups are at war with the FLZ but no detail line exists for the FLZ at all?

3. In the case where published alliances exist, I also note that transitive states do not apply either. For example, FGZ is allied with HVE, WMD and OPS, yet WMB is only allied with FGZ and OPS. Is this a correct situation?

Lots of weird things. Ive never used the order (its one of the new ones), but Id always thought it would only show your own affiliations political situation.

It also appears to be true for the GTT - CIA/CNF/DTR are at war with them, but GTT are not at war back. Guess its one-sided

More like an entry level mathematicians implemtation of a sparse matrix.

More like an entry level mathematicians implementation of a sparse matrix.

If your at war, or allied is defined soully by if the players running the affilation has issued the orders, and is only one way, possibly you could be allied with somoene who was at war with you, which brings on the great concepts of their ships being unable to attack you

I belive archangel is right about this, but i just wanted to mention that the FLZ are evil.

<coughs>

Hey! The FGZ are allied to a Wimble of Mass Destruction? Cool... can I buy one?

Ok let me be more precise I what I was trying to understand.

AFF ALLIES
FGZ (26) HVE WMB OPS
OPS (36) HVE WMB FGZ
WMB (25) FGZ OPS

Define the boolean function Allied(A, as

if (A is Allied to then return(true) else return(false);

Define the boolean function AtWar(A, as

if (A is At War with then return(true) else return(false);

Define the boolean function Neutral(A, as

if not(AtWar(A, Or Allied(A, ) then return(true) else return(false);

or equivalently

if (not(AtWar(A, And not(Allied(A, )) then return(true) else return(false); // De Morgans Laws

Also it should be self evident that the table of entries representing states

AtWar(A, , Allied(A, , Neutral(A,
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1

details the only valid combinations (i.e. mutually exclusive states)

Now:

if Allied(WMB, FGZ) -> Allied(FGZ, WMB) == true; // Alliances cannot logically exist if there is no reciprocation.

From which it follows

if (Allied(WMB, FGZ) And Allied(FGZ, HVE) then Allied(WMB, HVE) == true; // Law of transitivity working here???

In similar fashion

if AtWar(WMB, FGZ) -> AtWar(FGZ, WMB) == true; // Last I checked, war is also not a one way relationship.

However,

if (AtWar(WMB, FGZ) and AtWar(FGZ, HVE) is not sufficent to infer AtWar(WMB, HVE) == true; // Law of transitivity definately does not unconditionally apply here.

It is also not sufficient to assume

if (AtWar(WMB, FGZ) And AtWar(FGZ, HVE) then Allied(WMB, HVE) == true;

as any of the states
AtWar(WMB, HVE), Allied(WMB, HVE), Neutral(WMB, HVE) could simultaneously be true.

Now that we have demonstrated that transitivity does not apply for the AtWar relationships, it is apparent that my earlier conclusion:

if (Allied(WMB, FGZ) And Allied(FGZ, HVE) then Allied(WMB, HVE) == true
is not necessarily a valid conclusion for we could have either of the conditions
Neutral(WMB, HVE) or AtWar(WMB, HVE) being true.

This analysis answers my original question in point 3.

There is an obvious anomaly here for the case AtWar(WMB, HVE) == true;

Is it a reasonable state of affairs that if

if (Allied(WMB, FGZ) And Allied(FGZ, HVE) And AtWar(WMB, HVE)) == true?

Surely the declared alliance between WMB and FGZ cannot simultaneously exist when WMB is in a state of war with another FGZ ally?

It is presumed that in the event of AtWar(WMB, HVE) suddenly becoming true, then both WMB and HVE would be calling on FGZ for support.

FGZ cannot assist both sides, nor can it choose any side without offending the other ally. In essense I see that only two outcomes from such a deadlock situation.

An automatic solution not requiring an input from FGZ would be to set the states
Neutral(FGZ, WMB) and Neutral(FGZ, HVE).

A second alternative would require the FGZ to choose the required states between itself and the other two parties. Of course, this last requirement will take extra time, possibly requiring a voting procedure to undertaken by the FGZ before a valid response can be returned to KJC. A tricky/sticky situation at best.

Thats enough for now... I hope that I have been lucid enough to all to explain why I am uncomfortable with this table as it stands, and thus the need to raise questions in the hope of either highlighting one of 'Some errors exist in the table', 'I need it properly explained to me', I need new specs' ...


Regards to all

Archangel

I wouldn't agree this should be the case, or at least depending on the term 'allied'. For example a mutal defence agreement could exist between WMB and FGZ, and between FGZ and HVE which would mean that if the FGZ were attacked then both the HVE and the WMB would aid them, but if the WMB were attacked only the FGZ would aid them.

In the case were 'allied' is used to lend support in an aggression against a third party then it could follow the WMB and HVE are allied if just because any combat the FGZ helped with would pull the third side in along with them, probably.

For the same reason the assumption that two of your allies cannot be a war is flawed, although can make things confusing. Most of the time the ally would play a netural part to both alliances.

That alliances and war is reciprical does make sense, and with the case of an alliance that the other party should have to confirm it. However it all depends on what the states are to mean. In code terms they are just, i assume, flags stating who you will and won't attack, and who you will and won't defend. In which case there is no reason one alliance stating they will not attack xyz might be marked as allied, but the other side doesn't recipricate. An example would be a small affiliation not wanting a troublesome newbie to attack an agressive and much more powerful affiliation.

That alliances and war should be multally exclusive however should always be the case.

Sure, why not? If the enemy attacks, then you defend yourself (and your friends and allies defend you too, if they have the naval officers on board). But it means you do not go actively looking to attack the enemy. It might sound strange, but its a viable option.

I have definately missed the bus here... It is not the weird constructs that could ensue here, but the principle that a state of war can only exist 'in the mind' of one party but not the other that appears to me as a totally irrational concept.

Maybe so, but the Taliban, Al Q'Aeda and others are all reciprocating against actions taken against them under this banner.

You might also note that I have never discussed a war on a concept but wars between parties/Affiliations, all of which are entities.

You are quite correct that a DOW may be ignored by the other party. I venture the Status Quo would not remain intact after the first shots are fired.

I would also like to point out that you now contradict your earlier statement

Anyway, sadly this thread has become a debate which was not my original objective. I would rather have my original questions answered.

Thanks for your participation all the same though, it certainly proved interesting.

Gandhi's non-violent resistance?