On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3246 > > ============================== CFJ 3246 ============================== > > ais523 CAN destroy a ruble. > > ======================================================================== > ============================== CFJ 3247 ============================== > > ais523 CAN destroy a ruble. > > ======================================================================== > ============================== CFJ 3248 ============================== > > In the last few minutes, G. transferred exactly one ruble to > ais523. > > ========================================================================
I must avoid the question raised by these and judge TRUE, TRUE, and FALSE, respectively, as the creation of the promises Ping and Pong was unclear as to the nature of the conditions. They could be either conditions under which the promise can be cashed or conditions under which the promise is not destroyed (it is entirely reasonable for "this promise is not destroyed upon cashing" to be a condition for cashing). Thus their creation was ambiguous and invalid. I would gladly judge this case again given the opportunity. -scshunt
