On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > > I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true > > that a > > > rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the number > > of > > > coins R. Lee owned by 1. > > > I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility > > of a > > > game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a > > judgement > > > of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > > > > > > Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to > > attempt to poke some holes in it: > > > > 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE > > on that grounds. > > > > 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. > > You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are > > three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets > > you an IRRELEVANT judgement: > > > > - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met > > because of your pledge > > > > - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a > > hypothetical > > > > - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this > > condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning > > you an IRRELEVANT judgement > > > > That last point should thwart the attempt. > > -Aris > > > > > > > > You can't have both point two and point one, Jason! Dispensing with point one is not trivial, and therefore it is not trivial that this CFJ is PARADOXICAL (thus making it IRRELEVANT) if this CFJ could actually be FALSE due to point one. Besides, this CFJ omits two elements (of enactment and repeal) that were decided in the previous CFJ, making it a different statement entirely. If the paradox arose from one of those elements, there would be no paradox in this CFJ. -- >From R. Lee
