On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:09 -0400, warrigal wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But if the Terre Haute is "the Terre Haute", then it is a string, > >> which exists independently of the contract, so the contract cannot > >> make it an asset. > > > > Wait, that doesn't follow. "The Terre Haute" was defined to be the > > *name* of the asset, not the asset itself. If you are claiming that > > the string of characters actually becomes the asset, then you need to > > justify why that happens. > > Because if Rochelle O'Shea owns an asset, the Terre Haute is the name > of that asset. > I think Warrigal's argument is similar to this:
Define Buckingham Palace to be a Frobozz Magic Exculpator if and only if it is not owned by the Queen of England. Then, Buckingham Palace is an asset if the Queen doesn't own it (because there's no real-language meaning for a Frobozz Magic Exculpator), but isn't if it is (because there is a real-language meaning for Buckingham Palace). I'm not entirely convinced that this works, though; probably it only works if the US Dollars recently defined by contract refer to the non-Agoran American currency. -- ais523
