Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I agree to the following
>>>
>>> {This is a pledge entitled Test Subject. It can either be Blue or Green.
>>> It can either be Red or Yellow. It is initially Blue and Red. It's
>>> Disclosure is Public. When this contract's Disclosure is flipped, it
>>> becomes Green. When this contract's Sentiment is flipped, it becomes
>>> Yellow. Any player CAN terminate this contract by announcement.}
>>>
>>> I CFJ {Test Subject is Green.}
>>>
>>> I CFJ {Test Subject is Yellow.}
>>>
>>> Arguments: There are three possibilities here. The first is that the
>>> creation of the contract flips the switch by virtue of having it come to
>>> be a given value. In that case, both conditions are met, and Test
>>> Subject is Green and Yellow.
>>>
>>> The second is that the creation of the contract does not flip the
>>> switch, but that when the contract makes itself Public, this does
>>> constitute a flip, making it Red and Green.
>>>
>>> The third is that the switch always has one value and this is never
>>> changed, causing it to be Blue and Red.
>> This makes it clear that flipping is synonymous with coming to have a
>> value, rather than a means of attaining as much. Thus, any event in
>> which a switch "comes to have" a value -- in particular, when a newly
>> created switch "comes to have" its default value -- is a flipping of
>> that switch.
>
> Note that Test Subject never had its default Disclosure.
Are you arguing for the fourth possibility that the caller dismissed
without argument, that Test Subject may be Blue and Yellow?
