On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:36, Charles Reiss <woggl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:25, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> woggle wrote: >> >>>> Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean >>>> (default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured. >>> tracked by whom? >> >> The Janitor. >> >>>> * Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public contract, and >>>> Murphy consents to be its contestmaster. >>> I don't like doing such consent by proposal. Can you create a bootstrapping >>> rule >>> for the contestmaster flipping and the like? >> >> What's wrong with it? The proposal is itself an instrument with >> Power=2, so it can perform the various secured changes directly. > > Doing it in the form suggests that the proposal is forcing > R101(iv)-consent on Murphy and the AFO. This is, of course, not true I, of course, meant R101(iii), which is more relevant when plenty of notice would be provided as here.
-woggle
