The Decline of Eve Camps on BigServer2 And More

The same four families have apparently lived on bigserver2 since the latest change on Friday (see edit below).  There's an essay on the One Hour One Life forums called "On The Decline of Eve Camps" (or something similar).  Basically, I suspect that families move more and more in the direction of civilization maintenance as time passes.  Will things change at some point and families migrate?

My understanding that One Hour One Life comes as intended as a game where every life feels unique.  Or at least many of those lives that one plays.  But does this happen with the same four families alive?

Is it a good sign when civilization building declines so much that civilization maintenance becomes far more prominent?

Informed players can use the custom server box in the settings tab to select a server like 'server4.onehouronelife.com' (2-15 are the other numbers for those servers) to have a greater probability of playing in an Eve camp or as an Eve out in the wild.  But, often times players on those servers get no children, or no grandchildren, and lineages usually are rather short.

A similar pattern of falling into a cycle of civilization maintenance happened during many periods of The Rift as I understand it.

Why is there so little between the bigserver2 context and the context of servers 2 through 15?  Why does this game tend to extremes like that?

Does there exist enough variety in all of this?

Edit: There did exist a new family, the Meagles on bs2 who came into existence on Monday morning. I've also changed the title to the decline of Eve camps from 'No More Eve Camps'.

Re-Direction Process Dooming Lineages And Making Children Unavailable

The server system splits players not checking a custom server from bs2 to "bs2 and s1" or {bs2, s1} when the population gets high enough for load balancing purposes.  Usually, it has happened that when the player population declines enough, players just get directed back to bs2.  Then there exist no children for the remaining players on s1, which implies the doom of lineages.

Families apparently doomed by this process:

1: The Gemzas

(this lineage might not be on s1)

2:  The Corals

3: The Gardners


4: The Berrys

The servers split a second time again and s1 had these families:

5: Eve Judisch and her descendants

6: The Zaagmans

7: The Aas

8: The Fos

9: The Emms

Incoming players not checking a custom server got split again on Sunday:

10: The Fars

11: The Daes

12: The Edas

13: The Pococks

Does Jason Want In-Game Issues Reported Or Was His Stickied Post About Something Else?

I used a random number generator to select the server I would play on, with 0 for bigserver2 and 1-15 for the rest of the servers.  I didn't look at the reflector either.

The game is intended of one parenting.  I didn't get any children for the server I ended up on.  Nor did I meet anyone who was parenting.

Doesn't that mean we have a serious issue and one that has to happen every week to players when 'children of men' mode is active on bigserver2 and then server1 during the update period, and also when load balancing shifts people not checking a custom server around?

Here's my report:

Jason rejected it as an issue.  So, does Jason want in-game issues reported or not?

More doomed lineages.  This continues on a post of mine from the OHOL forums (given that such a post still exists).

1: The Groots: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5807110&rel_id=5807978

2: The Samanthas: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5807975

3: The Kilars: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5806763&rel_id=5806763

4: The Naitos: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5807848&rel_id=5807970

5: The Cooks: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5807301&rel_id=5807966

The longest lineage which happened all week was the Cocks, which I think happened after the latest update: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5774696&rel_id=5774696

6: The Dragons: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5808517

7: A nameless lineage: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5808531

8: The Dobbies: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5808820&rel_id=5808934

9: The Adams: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5808947

10: The Blacks: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5808946

11: The Loves: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5810387

12: The Kims: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5810377

13: The Dragons: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5810393

14: The Brownies: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5811765

15: The Kings: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5811754

16: The Zacariases: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5811198&rel_id=5811198

17: The Aplfelbaums: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5812232

18: The Matiles: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5812282

19: The Winters: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5812288

20: The Stellas: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5812380

21: The Overlocks: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/server.php?action=character_page&id=5812581

One of the axiom sets for two-valued propositional calculus got discovered by Wajsberg, which with some letter substitution would become as follows:

A1: CxCyx

A2: CCxCyzCCxyCxz

A3W: CCCx00x

It turns out that A3W consists of a special case in that a more general tautology A3 can get formulated in the sense that we can obtain A3W by uniform substitution from A3, but we cannot obtain A3 by uniform substitution from A3W.  A3 is as follows:

A3: CCCxy0x

The notation of a letter or constant on the left side of a '/' with a letter or constant on the blank indicates that we will substitute whatever lies on the left with whatever lies on the right.

To check the soundness of A3 we can set up the following equations:

C00 = 1, C10 = 0, C01 = 1, C11 = 1.

A3 x/0 y/0 yields CCC0000.  So, CCC0000 = CC100 = C00 = 1.

A3 x/0 y/1 yields CCC0100.  So, CCC0100 = CC100 = C00 = 1.

A3 x/1 y/0 yields CCC1001.  So, CCC1001 = CC001 = C11 = 1.

A4 x/1 y/1 yields CCC1101.  So, CCC1101 = CC101 = C01 = 1.

Consequently, CCCxy0x is a tautology.

Now we substitute y with 0 in A3 obtaining CCCx00x.

Therefore, since the above axiom set of Wajsberg consists of an axiom set for C-0 propositional calculus, it follows that {CxCyx, CCxCyzCCxyCxz, CCCxy0x} makes for an axiom set for C-0 propositional calculus under the rules of uniform substitution and detachment.

The author wants to note that N1: {CxCyx, CCxCyzCCxyCxz, CNCxyx} is not a basis for C-N propositional calculus.  To see this we only need to check that if we define N as follows N0 = 0, and N1 = 0, and define C as how it usually gets defined propositional calculi, then CNCxyx = 1.  But, the law of Clavius CCNxxx, with x/0 becomes CCN000, and

CCN000 = CC000= C10 = 0.  Thus, the law of Clavius is not derivable in system N1 under uniform substitution and detachment.

Goedel numbering is incoherent as a concept.  The difficulty, apparently not noticed, or ignored, lies in that logical and mathematical theories involve the concept of a variable.  A variable consists of something which can vary.  If something consists of a single object, then it cannot vary, for it is but one object.  Thus, it is not coherent to think of a variable as representing a single object.  A constant consists of a single object.  But, Goedel numbering involves assigning a constant to what previously got intended as a variable.

Thus, since a variable can vary, if we could logically assign a constant to a variable such that we have a one to one correspondence between the variable and the constant, that would imply that the variable can no longer vary, since constants cannot vary.

Goedel numbering does not respect the structure of variables.  Consequently, it cannot analyze variables.  To understand logic and mathematics, the concept of a variable must get understood.  Goedel numbering is a woefully inadequate tool for understanding mathematics and logic.

Suppose we look at something like the associative law for addition (or any universal law in logic or mathematics):

+(a, +(b, c)) = +(+(a, b), c).

How is it possible that we can infer that 1. +(65613, +(4, 3)) = +(+(65613, 4), 3) from that law?

How can we also infer that 2. +(567, +(28, 17)) = +(+(567, 28), 17)?

I answer that such is possible, because that law has variables 'a', 'b', and 'c' which range over all of the constants that we recognize as natural numbers, and because we take certain sequences of symbols and certain symbols as intending to convey natural numbers.

But, what would happen if we Goedel number the associative law?  Whatever we correspond to 'a', to 'b', and to 'c' get intended as representing constants.  But, constants don't range over anything.  If we could get both 1. and 2. from the above, then whatever constant would correspond to the variable 'a', would somehow have to correspond to '65613' and then to '567'.  A constant though consists of a single object, so we would have a single object corresponding to two objects such that the single object has enough structure to produce two objects, *while still remaining one object*.  But, this just doesn't have any coherence.  It is never the case that is possible that one object can equal two objects in terms of it's basic properties, since it is simply not possible for the natural number one to equal the natural number two.

The following I've learned with the help of the late William McCune's program Prover9 https://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/mace4/  2005-2010.

In the following the symbol '0', given a context, stands for a constant false propositions.  The sense behind the idea of '0' thus may get captured by the following sentence:

"When you are awake, The Earth is exactly the same as The Sun."

Suppose we consider the following basis for classical propositional logic.  The small letters for this system only get taken from the second half of the English abc's for small letters.  We might also subscript them with numeral symbols so long as each symbols can get clearly distinguished from other symbols.


1. C x Cyx.  Recursive Meaningful Expression Prefixing

2. C CxCyz C Cxy Cxz.  C-Distribution

3. C CCxy0 x.  Arbitrary Implication to Falsum to the Antecedent of the Implication.

Suppose also we have the following definitions:



def. 1: Nx is defined as Cx0.

def. 2: Axy is defined as CCxyy.

def. 3: Kxy is defined as CCxCy00.

def. 4: Exy is defined as CCCxyCCyx00.

The third axiom along with the above definitions allows us to deduce a few theorems in just a few steps. 

Applying def. 1 to 3. we obtain 4

4 C NCxy x. Negation of an arbitrary conditional to the antecedent of that conditional.

Now putting 0 in the place of y in 4 we obtain 5 (we can abbreviate that as x/0 * 5 following the scheme x/y * z, which I will use hereafter):

5 C NCx0 x.

Applying def. 4 to CNx0 in 5 we obtain 6:

6 C NNx x.  Double negation to the small letter of the meaningful expression.

3 y/Cy0 * 7

7 C CCxCy00 x.

Applying def. 3 to CCxCy00 in 7 we obtain 8:

8 C Kxy x.  Arbitrary conjunction to it's left meaningful expression.

1 y/Cyx * 9

9 C x CCyx x.

Applying def. 2 to CCyxx in 9 we obtain 10:

10 C x Ayx.  Arbitrary proposition to a disjunction with that proposition on the right of the disjunction.

3 x/Cxy, y/CCyx0 * 11

11 C CCCxyCCyx00 Cxy.

Applying def. 4 to CCCxyCCyx00 in 11 we obtain 12:

12 C Exy Cxy.   Arbitrary equivalence to a similar conditional.