On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 14:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This applies all the way to the top promise, Contrariwise. Caller, do
> > you have an argument against this? Regardless of what is going on or
> > how the message is built up, via promises or text messages, the function
> > of your scam depends upon a promise being cashed, and as a direct result
> > an indeterminate value existing.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> The "directly" seems a bit bizarre here, in that the actions aren't
> being taken by means of promises being cashed. I cash a promise and that
> causes other actions, which cause other actions, and so on, but none of
> them are actually promises. So there's nothing indeterminate happening
> as a direct result of the promise, only as an indirect result.
Well, when I wrote it, I meant "directly" as "a promise cashing that sets
in motion a sequence of automatically-occurring events [note, the sequence
doesn't have to be promises] that leads, an instant later, to an
indeterminate state." So taken literally, that's what you did, you cashed
a promise which set that in motion.
Just off the top of my head, the test of 'directness' would be three pronged:
1. timing (does the indefinite state occur for any time 'immediately'
after the promised is cashed);
2. causality (was the promise required to start the events);
3. finality (was the end state inevitable once the promise was cashed).
I'm certainly willing to admit that this may be overloading 'directly'
too much! I'll explore that avenue.
-G.
