On 6 November 2011 22:24, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 17:22 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I create a Promise with the following text, and then cash it: {{I cash
this Promise. This
On 11/06/2011 09:11 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 13:42 -0600, Pavitra wrote:
On 11/06/2011 09:11 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
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
n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
Yes you can.
-scshunt
On 11/07/2011 01:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run forever.
Yes you can.
Yup, see for example the
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 14:53 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
n Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 14:48, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
You can't use destruction of promises, because you can't create promises
in other promises, and so this wouldn't be able to run
On 11/06/2011 03:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 15:44, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk 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)
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 Sun, 2011-11-06 at 17:22 -0500, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca 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
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk 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
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 specified:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com 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.)
On 11/06/2011 08:27 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com 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
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
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:59, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/2011 01:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 14:39, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
SPELUNKING THE RULES CONTEST
After some perusal of the July/August archives, I am not finding
On 10/26/2011 03:49 PM, 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 (Judicial Arguments and Evidence)
Rule 2338 (Cashing
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 14:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(sigh) I knew someone would do this. This is why no-one likes us.
This isn't meant to be criticism of your actions; I just thought it was
an interesting CFJ, as it's an edge case I don't think has happened yet.
--
ais523
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 14:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
(sigh) I knew someone would do this. This is why no-one likes us.
This isn't meant to be criticism of your actions; I just thought it was
an interesting CFJ, as it's an edge case I don't think has
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 17:00, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(sigh) I knew someone would do this. This is why no-one likes us.
Gratuitous:
1. The auto-picks script produces random numbers similar to other internet
dice servers. For this contest, as for other previous
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
3. The definition of an ongoing Delve is unclear. The best
interpretation I can see from the text of the contest is that it is a
Delve with a current Delving Period.
You are correct that I have used terminology wrong in a couple places when
making
20 matches
Mail list logo
