On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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.
Bah, I should have clarified that particular sentence. I meant any time that wasn't in the infinite sequence of actions. Sean
