On Sat, 2022-07-16 at 00:35 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in
> > English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something
> > entirely different.
> > CFJ 3744 suggests "the proposal" was created multiple times, and wasn't
> actually a proposal, but the attributes of a proposal:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744
No it doesn't.
> It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
> shorthand could mean,
No it doesn't. It discusses a couple of possible wordings, but the
shorthand wording it discusses is specifically "Proposal:", and the CFJ
is discussing whether the shorthand succeeds in doing everything in the
case where the properties given below aren't valid as a proposal,
finding that (in that case) it would be unclear. It's also clear from
that CFJ verdict that wording matters when taking this sort of action.
> "I create a proposal with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text
> properties" being a possibility, just as I argued before.
That's only a suggestion for what "Proposal:" might mean.
> "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
> would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
> judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
> possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
> succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
Neither of those wordings could succeed in creating multiple proposals,
because they both use language that can only be used to apply to a
single proposal. The judge of CFJ 3744 specifically found that "I
create this proposal" has a different meaning from "I create a proposal
with the following attributes and text" (in the case of CFJ 3744, the
latter wording was used, and the creation failed because it was
impossible for a proposal to have the stated attributes).
Are you seriously trying to argue that "Twice, I create this proposal:
{proposal}" is capable of creating two different proposals? I can't
read that sentence as having any other meaning than attempting to
create the same proposal twice (and whether two proposals are the same
entity is important because, e.g., putting a proposal into the proposal
pool, then putting the same proposal into the proposal pool, won't lead
to it being in there twice, just like transferring the same nonfungible
asset to someone twice won't lead to them having two copies of it).
Compare the hypothetical wording "Twice, I create a proposal:
{proposal}", which looks a lot more like two different proposals are
being created.
--
ais523
