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: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm guessing another way this could work is via Pledges which have even
less restrictions. Just custom-write whatever you need to engineer a
paradox. The main concern would be dodging "irrelevant", though. But it
could be doable.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Going to do a quick check on possible pitfalls on this
> indeterminate/inextricable stuff for Nichdel's variant, just in case
> anything is missing to this puzzle. Here are all mentions of "inextricable
> conditionals" and "indeterminate" in the ruleset and how I perceive it
> interacts with Nichdel's variant.
>
> --- "INEXTRICABLE CONDITIONALS" PITFALLS? ---
> - The mention of "inextricable" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's
> just about holding shinies or not.
> - From Rule 2522 "If the possibility of any action defined by this rule is
> indeterminate, or is subject to a *inextricable conditional*, it is
> impossible.", it refers to the *possibility* of an action, not the command
> to do it (which the CFJ is asking about).
> - From Rule 2523 "If whether an action is permitted or forbidden by a
> contract is indeterminate or subject to an *inextricable conditional*, it
> is presumptively permitted.". Again its about if the action is permitted,
> not the compulsion to, so another bullet dodged I suspect.
> - From Rule 2524 "if whether the contract enables the person to do so is
> indeterminate, or is the subject of an* inextricable conditional*, the
> action is IMPOSSIBLE" Again it's about actions, not commands. And the
> "acting on behalf" part is not relevant because we're not using that
> mechanic in the contract, so no problem here I believe.
>
> --- "INDETERMINATE" PITFALLS? ---
> - The mention of "indeterminate" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's
> just about holding shinies or not.
> - From Rule 2520 "If any change to a contract's text, internal state, or
> other properties would cause them to become *indeterminate* and remain so
> for any non-infinitesimal amount of time, the change is canceled and does
> not occur.". There are no changes in the contact, it just is (no variables
> moving around or anything), so no problem here I believe. The "any change
> to a contract's text" thing might be a catch, but I think not because there
> is no change to a contract's text to begin with, the contract just spawns
> into existence with the weirdness, there is to change TO it once it becomes
> a contract.
> - From Rule 2522, same as the R2522 "inextricable conditional" one so np.
> - Same with Rule 2523
> - Rule 2202 mentions it but its about Ratification so not relevant.
> - Rule 2162 mentions it but its about switches so not relevant.
> - Rule 2524 mentions it but is the same as the Inex. Cond. case for the
> same rule so np.
> - Rule 2518 defines "indeterminate" itself. Not much here I believe.
> - Rule 2517 defines "inextricable conditional" via mentioning
> "indeterminate" so no much here either.
>
> I think that's all. And all bullets dodged, I believe. Hopefully.
>
> If nothing else comes up I guess it would be time to rub hands, pray and
> see this baby in action, hoho.
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, 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 

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?
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Cuddle Beam]

Going to do a quick check on possible pitfalls on this
indeterminate/inextricable stuff for Nichdel's variant, just in case
anything is missing to this puzzle. Here are all mentions of "inextricable
conditionals" and "indeterminate" in the ruleset and how I perceive it
interacts with Nichdel's variant.

--- "INEXTRICABLE CONDITIONALS" PITFALLS? ---
- The mention of "inextricable" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's
just about holding shinies or not.
- From Rule 2522 "If the possibility of any action defined by this rule is
indeterminate, or is subject to a *inextricable conditional*, it is
impossible.", it refers to the *possibility* of an action, not the command
to do it (which the CFJ is asking about).
- From Rule 2523 "If whether an action is permitted or forbidden by a
contract is indeterminate or subject to an *inextricable conditional*, it
is presumptively permitted.". Again its about if the action is permitted,
not the compulsion to, so another bullet dodged I suspect.
- From Rule 2524 "if whether the contract enables the person to do so is
indeterminate, or is the subject of an* inextricable conditional*, the
action is IMPOSSIBLE" Again it's about actions, not commands. And the
"acting on behalf" part is not relevant because we're not using that
mechanic in the contract, so no problem here I believe.

--- "INDETERMINATE" PITFALLS? ---
- The mention of "indeterminate" in Rule 2166 doesn't seem relevant, it's
just about holding shinies or not.
- From Rule 2520 "If any change to a contract's text, internal state, or
other properties would cause them to become *indeterminate* and remain so
for any non-infinitesimal amount of time, the change is canceled and does
not occur.". There are no changes in the contact, it just is (no variables
moving around or anything), so no problem here I believe. The "any change
to a contract's text" thing might be a catch, but I think not because there
is no change to a contract's text to begin with, the contract just spawns
into existence with the weirdness, there is to change TO it once it becomes
a contract.
- From Rule 2522, same as the R2522 "inextricable conditional" one so np.
- Same with Rule 2523
- Rule 2202 mentions it but its about Ratification so not relevant.
- Rule 2162 mentions it but its about switches so not relevant.
- Rule 2524 mentions it but is the same as the Inex. Cond. case for the
same rule so np.
- Rule 2518 defines "indeterminate" itself. Not much here I believe.
- Rule 2517 defines "inextricable conditional" via mentioning
"indeterminate" so no much here either.

I think that's all. And all bullets dodged, I believe. Hopefully.

If nothing else comes up I guess it would be time to rub hands, pray and
see this baby in action, hoho.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, 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 

Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Nicholas Evans]

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: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Alexis Hunt]

I favour this case.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 at 21:27 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 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: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Cuddle Beam]

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 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?
>

DIS: Win by paradox?

[Cuddle Beam]

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?