On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 20:09 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of > > > the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did. > > > > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584 > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2737 > > > > I do not believe that the precedent established in CFJ 1584 applies > > here, and accordingly I find fault with the reasoning in CFJ 2737. In > > particular, I do not believe it's possible to read an additional > > requirement of finititude into the rules where none exists. Rule 217 > > is clear; the text of the rules takes precedence, and the text of the > > rules says that me cashing an infinite promise is equivalent to me > > cashing it; it specifies no termination condition. > > I think you did indeed effectively send infinitely many conditional > actions. I also think that for any message containing infinitely many > conditional actions, regardless of whether promises are involved or not, > they all fail.
In that case, what do you think happens for the non-conditional case: Promise 1: I sit and cash Promise 2. Promise 2: I lie down and cash Promise 1. I cash promise 1.
