Rule 2166 says that the owner of an asset generally CAN transfer it to another entity, so ehird CAN transfer a crumpet in eir possession to a pen. The court rejects H. Ivan Hope CXXVII's assertion that a pen, being a fungible entity, cannot own different assets than another pen with the same owner; ownership in this case is a property of the crumpet, not of the pen, so the fungibility of any given entity's pens is immaterial. There's no general right to cause an asset in one's possession to transfer assets it owns to oneself, and thus 2 pens are of equal value regardless of whether one of them happens to own crumpets as well. (It is, of course, impossible for the recordkeepor of crumpets to say for sure which pen owns a particular crumpet, since pens don't have individuality, but that's rather the recordkeepor's problem, not the court's.)
However, I hold that the statement "I create a crumpet, eat it, and transfer it to a pen, randomly selected from all pens." is meaningless, since the original crumpet ceases to exist upon being eaten, as it is replaced with 5 crumpets, leaving the second "it" without a referent. The attempted transfer therefore failed, so at the time these CFJs were called, both were FALSE. (Were they to be called again now, after the clarified action of attempting to transfer all of the crumpets created by the eating of 1, I'd argue for a ruling of UNDETERMINED, since at least one pen has been destroyed in the interim and the information about whether the crumpets were owned by a destroyed pen is unavailable to the court, and, for that matter, to the recordkeepor of crumpets. Again, it's the responsibility of the parties to the contract defining crumpets to ensure that they can only be owned by entities that can be distinguished; they cannot shift that responsibility to the courts.) --Wooble
