Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> 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?
Possibly, actually. I'm just interested.
