I object.
Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
owner is ambiguous.
The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
that is in abeyance.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
>
> 1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
> 2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
> 3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
> 4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
> 5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
>
> Promise Q is irrevocable (so ais523 cannot take it via "The creator of
> a promise CAN"), and would cause ais523 to grant emself a promise
> "Awakening".
>
> CFJ 4075: "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q, either by directly cashing it, or
> by transferring it from the Library to emself and then cashing it."
>
> CFJ 4076: "I CAN cash the promise 'Awakening'."
>
> There is no reason to believe that #1 failed. The question is whether
> the remaining steps succeed in creating a paradox. Possible
> interpretations:
>
> a) #2 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #3 succeeds,
> then #4 fails (the Library no longer owns Promise Q),
> then #5 fails (ais523 no longer owns Promise Q), contradiction.
>
> b) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #5 succeeds (ais523 owns Promise Q via #4), contradiction.
>
> c) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #5 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q).
>
> Either a) or b) leads to judgements of PARADOXICAL, whereas c) leads to
> judgements of FALSE. So now the question is whether this text from Rule
> 217 (Interpreting the Rules) rules out c):
>
> Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
> using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
> can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
> rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
> is true.
>
> I accept the caller's argument that it does, and was intended to do so
> (to block more malicious situations such as "if I don't have a
> dictatorship then a paradox arises").
>
> I judge 4075 PARADOXICAL.
> I judge 4076 PARADOXICAL.
>
> For completeness, here's some research on past successful paradoxes,
> though none of it appears to set an obviously relevant precedent.
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged PARADOXICAL:
>
> * CFJ 3907 ("I pledge to violate this pledge")
>
> * CFJ 3901 (a promise granting and cashing a copy of itself, after
> which Rule 2618 was amended to block such recursion)
>
> * CFJ 3828 (a rule assigning an asset to an ambiguous player, after
> which Rule 2576 was amended to transfer such assets to the L&FD)
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged UNDECIDABLE (and pre-dating the Rule 217
> text above, which was added by Proposal 7584 in August 2013):
>
> * CFJs 3249 and 3334 (self-reference via conditions attached to
> promises)
>
> * CFJ 3240 ("'Ozymandias has won' has the same truth value as this
> statement", where Ozymandias had not won)
>
> * CFJ 3234 ("ehird is capable of evoking the power of UNDEAD", where
> nothing obviously defined that one way or the other)
>
> * CFJs 3212 and 3220 (self-reference regarding the legality of
> claiming the CFJ's statement)
>
> * CFJ 3087 ("The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can..."
> while Agora was defined as a player)
>
> * CFJ 2878 (similar to 3212 and 3220)
>
> * CFJ 2650 (separate clauses of Rule 2166 stating "this asset is
> owned by the L&FD" and "this asset can't be transferred", despite
> Rule 2240 which did exist at the time)
>
> * CFJ 2543 (self-reference involving ADoP report including
> report-last-published dates)
>
> * CFJ 2469 (Curry's paradox: "if this statement is true, then ais523
> can win by announcement")
>
> * CFJ 2446 (direct liar paradox)
>
> * CFJ 2423 (ambiguous rule change)
>
> * CFJ 2115 (self-reference regarding the legality of judging it FALSE)
>
> * CFJs 1980 and 1982 (self-reference involving contract definitions)
>
> * CFJs 1883 and 1884 (question as statement, pre-dating the period when
> such CFJs were basically judged as "The answer to <question> is yes")
>
> * CFJ 1787 (similar to 2115)
>
> * CFJ 780 ("X violated Y by Z", where X clearly violated some rule but
> not necessarily Y; these days we would probably ask for more info,
> then judge DISMISS if it wasn't produced promptly enough)
>
> * CFJ 771 (self-contradictory rule: "a player may X" vs "the Y reduces
> X as requested")
>
> I was looking for (but couldn't find) one or two other cases that G. was
> involved in, along the lines of:
>
> * A player plays card X which gives em card Y, then plays card Y
> which retroactively negates eir playing card X
>
> * The Arbitor (maybe named CotC at the time) ambiguously assigns a
> CFJ to either X or Y, both of whom would be in a position where eir
> judgement would imply that the other one was assigned the CFJ
>
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
