On 07/04/2024 13:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > mechanism in rule 2618). > > I transfer Promise Q from myself to Yachay. > > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > mechanism in rule 2618). > > I cash Promise Q.
Gratuitous arguments: I was talking about this IRL with Gaelan earlier and we thought it worked, but now I'm working through it in more detail I can see exactly one internally consistent sequence of events: 1. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to cash it in the same message. 2. Attempting to transfer Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. 3. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to cash it in the same message. 4. Attempting to cash Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. But there's no reason you couldn't say points 3 and 4 about any normally taken-and-cashed promise that doesn't involve transferring it to someone else! And in that case there is another internally consistent sequence of events, i.e., that nothing failed and it worked entirely as intended. So I wonder if ais523 has hit on the exactly one class of sequences of actions to do with the Library that does *not* cause a paradox. Just for completeness... I grant the Library a promise with the text "This promise is irrevocable. I intend, without objection, to Declare Apathy, specifying myself." I take the promise, whose creator is myself, from the Library, and cash it. CFJ: "There exists a tabled immature intent, sponsored by me, to Declare Apathy." -Kate
