Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 10:14 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> Gratuitous Argument:
> Obviously, the veracity of the statement "This sentence is false" is 
> indeterminate, as Rule 2518 ("Determinacy") makes clear. As a
> result, whether or not you owe shinies to Agora is indeterminate,
> whether or not you owe shinies to Cuddlebeam is indeterminate, and if
> you tried to actually pay that indeterminate number of shinies, Rule
> 2162 ("Switches") comes in and resets the shiny counts to what they
> were before they became indeterminate. The case is IRRELEVANT.

There have been scams tried in the past which attempted to reset the
value of a switch to its default via causing it to become indeterminate
(which is quite a different effect from resetting it to its previous
value!). I can't remember offhand if any of them worked.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Madeline]

Gratuitous Argument:
Obviously, the veracity of the statement "This sentence is false" is 
indeterminate, as Rule 2518 ("Determinacy") makes clear. As a result, 
whether or not you owe shinies to Agora is indeterminate, whether or not 
you owe shinies to Cuddlebeam is indeterminate, and if you tried to 
actually pay that indeterminate number of shinies, Rule 2162 
("Switches") comes in and resets the shiny counts to what they were 
before they became indeterminate. The case is IRRELEVANT.


On 2018-02-06 14:54, Nicholas Evans wrote:

TTttPF

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Well it seems viable to me so 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  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?

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Cuddle Beam]

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  wrote:

> TTttPF
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well it seems viable to me so 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 
> 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?
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>