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:
> {{E
> I submit the following promise, where Z is the promise
> specified:
> {{F
> I cash promise X, specifying promise Z.
> Call the resulting promise A.
>
> I cash promise Y, specifying promise Z.
> Call the resulting promise B.
>
> I cash promise A, specifying promise B.
>
> (This promise is not destroyed when cashed.)
> }}F
>
> (This promise is not destroyed when cashed.)
> }}E
>
> (This promise is not destroyed when cashed.
> }}D
>
> (This promise is not destroyed when cashed.
> }}C
One copy of S is submitted.
> I submit the following promise, which will be called I:
> {{
> I submit the promise specified.
>
> (This promise is not destroyed when cashed.)
> }}
Since no promises are transferred at any point in this exercise, the
effect is that "cash I, specifying Q" is a synonym for "submit Q".
> 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.)
> I cash promise C, specifying promise I. Call the resulting promise D.
One copy of S is cashed, specifying I.
One copy of D is submitted, assigning X as a synonym for I.
> I cash promise D, specifying promise D.
One copy of a new promise is submitted; following the existing naming
scheme, I call it E. X=I and Y=D.
I'm not sure I see where you're going with this.
