On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Sean Hunt wrote: > Therefore, > at any defineable time after the original cashing of Ping2, a ruble > that was bounced back and forth was in fact owned by the LFD. Thus > ais523 owned no rubles at the initiation of CFJs 3254 and 3255, so I > judge them both FALSE.
Actually, on re-reading, I wonder if this introduces a meta-contradiction. If we assume that "any definable time" afterwards the ruble belonged to the LFD, then on ais523's "next" transfer (for any given value of "next"), the transfer simply fails because ais523 did not have a ruble. Which means that, for G.'s next transfer, e transferred a different one of eir rubles to ais523 (which entered the loop, and likewise goes to the LFD) and then another, then another... until G's rubles are all with the LFD, and the transfers stop. But if the transfers stop with all of both parties' rubles belonging to the LFD, then the process is finite in the first place! Maybe it's not UNDECIDABLE; maybe the asset rule takes rubles to the LFD, but nothing halts the promise cycle. Maybe (now that ais523 and I are drained of rubles), any ruble given to us in future instantly enters the cycle and ends up the LFD... :) -G.
