nichdel 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?
This is CFJ 3620. I assign it to Alexis.
