Sean Hunt wrote:
> I agree to the following
>
> {This is a pledge entitled Test Subject. It can either be Blue or Green.
> It can either be Red or Yellow. It is initially Blue and Red. It's
> Disclosure is Public. When this contract's Disclosure is flipped, it
> becomes Green. When this contract's Sentiment is flipped, it becomes
> Yellow. Any player CAN terminate this contract by announcement.}
>
> I CFJ {Test Subject is Green.}
>
> I CFJ {Test Subject is Yellow.}
>
> Arguments: There are three possibilities here. The first is that the
> creation of the contract flips the switch by virtue of having it come to
> be a given value. In that case, both conditions are met, and Test
> Subject is Green and Yellow.
>
> The second is that the creation of the contract does not flip the
> switch, but that when the contract makes itself Public, this does
> constitute a flip, making it Red and Green.
>
> The third is that the switch always has one value and this is never
> changed, causing it to be Blue and Red.
Gratuitous arguments:
It seems that the only place in the Rules that would cause a switch that
has never been flipped to have a value is R2162p2s3:
If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
possible value, it comes to have its default value.
It seems, then, clear to me that both the Disclosure and Sentiment "come
to have" their default values, rather than being platonically created
with those values already in place.
Further:
"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a
given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of
exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to
X.
This makes it clear that flipping is synonymous with coming to have a
value, rather than a means of attaining as much. Thus, any event in
which a switch "comes to have" a value -- in particular, when a newly
created switch "comes to have" its default value -- is a flipping of
that switch.
I therefore believe that Test Subject is Green and Yellow, and that both
CFJs should be ruled TRUE.
