On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool<[email protected]> wrote:
The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy,
with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise
with notice IFF the sentence in its "destruction by author condition" slot
is true. So:
If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author
of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then
the author CAN destroy that promise with notice.
I fail to see the alleged biconditional.
As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other
instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed.
