> ============================== CFJ 1986 ==============================
>
> Ivan Hope CXXVII owns the oddball {2/3,3/4}
>
> ============================== CFJ 1987 ==============================
>
> The Lost and Found Department owns the oddball {2/3,3/4}
>
> ========================================================================
Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)
Assets
An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or
contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
because its backing document defines its existence.
Sets do not exist solely because of this contract, so oddballs are not
assets, and the Lost and Found Department does not own any. Nor does
Ivan Hope CXXVII, who is not permitted by the Rules or by the contract
to award them. I (proto-)judge CFJs 1986-7 FALSE.
That said, what if the contract had "wrapped" the sets, with language
to the effect that, for example, oddballs are unique entities
associated with a number?
Well, then that'd be like a judicial panel, a Rules-defined entity of
which an infinite number exists. Rule 2166 (Assets) does not make any
distinction between instruments defining things and contracts defining
things, so in this hypothetical case, there would be an infinite
number of oddballs owned by the Lost and Found Department.
However, in that case, the uniqueness requirement would preclude Ivan
Hope CXXVII from creating oddballs, since the ability of em to do so
by announcement is "subject to modification by [the asset's] backing
document".
