Going to do a quick check on possible pitfalls on this indeterminate/inextricable stuff for Nichdel's variant, just in case anything is missing to this puzzle. Here are all mentions of "inextricable conditionals" and "indeterminate" in the ruleset and how I perceive it interacts with Nichdel's variant.
--- "INEXTRICABLE CONDITIONALS" PITFALLS? --- - The mention of "inextricable" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's just about holding shinies or not. - From Rule 2522 "If the possibility of any action defined by this rule is indeterminate, or is subject to a *inextricable conditional*, it is impossible.", it refers to the *possibility* of an action, not the command to do it (which the CFJ is asking about). - From Rule 2523 "If whether an action is permitted or forbidden by a contract is indeterminate or subject to an *inextricable conditional*, it is presumptively permitted.". Again its about if the action is permitted, not the compulsion to, so another bullet dodged I suspect. - From Rule 2524 "if whether the contract enables the person to do so is indeterminate, or is the subject of an* inextricable conditional*, the action is IMPOSSIBLE" Again it's about actions, not commands. And the "acting on behalf" part is not relevant because we're not using that mechanic in the contract, so no problem here I believe. --- "INDETERMINATE" PITFALLS? --- - The mention of "indeterminate" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's just about holding shinies or not. - From Rule 2520 "If any change to a contract's text, internal state, or other properties would cause them to become *indeterminate* and remain so for any non-infinitesimal amount of time, the change is canceled and does not occur.". There are no changes in the contact, it just is (no variables moving around or anything), so no problem here I believe. The "any change to a contract's text" thing might be a catch, but I think not because there is no change to a contract's text to begin with, the contract just spawns into existence with the weirdness, there is to change TO it once it becomes a contract. - From Rule 2522, same as the R2522 "inextricable conditional" one so np. - Same with Rule 2523 - Rule 2202 mentions it but its about Ratification so not relevant. - Rule 2162 mentions it but its about switches so not relevant. - Rule 2524 mentions it but is the same as the Inex. Cond. case for the same rule so np. - Rule 2518 defines "indeterminate" itself. Not much here I believe. - Rule 2517 defines "inextricable conditional" via mentioning "indeterminate" so no much here either. I think that's all. And all bullets dodged, I believe. Hopefully. If nothing else comes up I guess it would be time to rub hands, pray and see this baby in action, hoho. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well it seems viable to me sooooo I'll give it a shot I guess lol. > > (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). Here > are > > the proto-actions: > > > > > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text: > > ------- > > "This sentence is false." > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its > false, > > I owe no shinies to Agora. > > If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of > > shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed. // <--- Mainly so that > it > > can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game mechanic. > > > > I'm not caught up on recent discussions but my reading of 2520 makes me > wonder if a contract can prohibit action. That said, I think this works: > > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text: > ------- > "This sentence is false." > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its false, > I owe no shinies to Agora. > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I do > not owe any shinies to any person. > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora and > CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing. > ------- > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay > CuddleBeam at least one shiny. > > > > > ------- > > > > I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due to > the > > contract above. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just > > > "program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for example, > > some > > > variant of the Paradox of the Court > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have to pay > > > someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay them or > > not? > > > > > > Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because of the > > > case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make the > > CFJ > > > read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not > > > appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case itself or > in > > > reference to it.") > > > > > > Then claim a win via the Paradox rule. > > > > > > Sounds viable? > > > > > >
