On Sun, 19 May 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2013, com...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is, for the record, exactly the scam that prompted me to make my > > recent proposal regarding Messy Statements. I believe that under the > > current version, it's impossible to get a win with a scam like this that > > relies on infinite recursion. > > > > However, I believe you messed it up anyway, first because cashing > > conditions are required to be "true and determinate", so the scam cannot be > > exploited with cashing conditions, and second because your condition is not > > actually paradoxical. A promise cannot be cashed directly from the Tree, > > so the condition is equivalent to "false", so the promise cannot be cashed > > or transferred. The fact that the condition is true at a time when it > > cannot be cashed anyway is irrelevant. > > My point was that it is not the cashing, but the Transfer in question. > > When the promise is on the tree, the truth value is true and determinate. > When the promise is off the tree, the truth value is false and determinate. > Which is fine for forbidding the cashing. > But what about forbidding the transfer?
By that I mean: the transfer is conditional on the future "false" (hence retroactive action). Which is why, also, in the first case, the condition is not that the promise is cashable on the tree, but just that it is on the tree (so the fact that it is not "cashable from the tree" does not break it).
