I T B E G I N S. I'm excited to see the outcome! On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TTttPF > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, 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? > >> > > >> > > > > >
