On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 23:11, omd wrote:
> Proposal: okay, this has gotten silly (AI=3)
>
> Repeal Rule 2339 (Intention).
> Repeal Rule 2351 (Agora, Adult).
Against. Veto. Exile!
In general I think a better question is whether you can evaluate complex
expressions with promises without requiring complicated naming schemes or
complicated individual messages that could be thrown out as unclear, relying
instead on emergent behavior from a series of individually simple messag
On 11/06/2011 08:27 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>>> I cash promise S, specifying promise I. Call the resulting promise C.
>> This submits a second copy of S, and assigns C as a synonym for S.
>> (Note that promises with the same text, author, and condit
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> I cash promise S, specifying promise I. Call the resulting promise C.
> This submits a second copy of S, and assigns C as a synonym for S.
> (Note that promises with the same text, author, and conditions are
> fungible.)
That's what would happen i
This entire thing is hypothetical because it was posted to a-d.
Tanner L. Swett wrote:
> I submit the following promise, which will be called S:
> {{C
> I submit the following promise, where X is the promise specified:
> {{D
> I submit the following promise, where Y is the promise specifi
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM, ais523 wrote:
> ehird, I have a mission for you. Are non-self-destroying Promises, plus
> Promise transfer, Turing-complete?
I submit the following promise, which will be called S:
{{I submit the following promise, where X is the promise specified:
{{I submit the
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announce my intent to deputize for the cotc to recuse yally from
> cfjs 3105 and 3106, and to assign those cfjs to myself (G.) thus
> limiting ambiguity to date-of-assignment. Or Murphy can do this
> first of course; won't judge until so assi
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 17:22 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I create a Promise with the following text, and then cash it: {{I cash
> > this Promise. This Promise is not destroyed by being cashed.}}
> >
> > I CFJ {Agora is stuck in an infinite loop.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I create a Promise with the following text, and then cash it: {{I cash
> this Promise. This Promise is not destroyed by being cashed.}}
>
> I CFJ {Agora is stuck in an infinite loop.}
Gratuitous: generally, sequences of actions are considered to
On 11/06/2011 03:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
> The actions in this post constitute a Delve.
>
> I create a Promise with the following text, and then cash it: {{I cash
> this Promise. This Promise is not destroyed by being cashed.}}
>
> I CFJ {Agora is stuck in an infinite loop.}
I intend, without
On 11/06/2011 03:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 15:44, ais523 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 13:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> With 2 Support I do so. I announce the start of Delve 4 with these (same)
>>> Rules
>>> selected:
>>> Rule 2335 (Judge Points)
>>> Rule 2205
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> == CFJ 3113 ==
>
> Agora wishes to counteract a decision if and only if the
> decision would substantially violate a person's rights as
> defined by Rule 101
>
> ==
12 matches
Mail list logo
