On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the
> resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to
> determine the number being communicated.

If we go with #2, here's something I just thought of.  Yesterday you
stated (as a resolver) that I (as a combatant) have sent you my desired
value for Space Battle #0002.  So you've said that my value is something
you know.  What if the second combatant then sends "I wish to spend
whatever G. spent, +1"?

On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:

That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's thoughts 
between #1 and #2.

I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; 
what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number 
being communicated.

If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take twg's word that e had set 
a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a 
value when it was made. So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" 
case rather than a "what constitutes communication".

It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in 
advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the 
value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that 
“rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate 
that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came 
to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. 
So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at 
the times they were communicated.

Reply via email to