On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I create the following 5 promises for each of [N] below equal to > 1,2,3,4,5. (specifying this as a single action is an administrative > convenience, as they are non-fungible promises). > > Title: The Unexpected Cashing [N]. > Text: Hello world [N]. > Conditions for Cashing: There are no promises owned by the tree entitled > 'The Unexpected Cashing [M]' where [M] is a number higher than [N], and > there is at least one promise owned by the tree, that CAN be cashed via > transfer and cashing from the tree, whose title is in part 'The Unexpected > Cashing'. > > I transfer The Unexpected Cashing 1, The Unexpected Cashing 2, > The Unexpected Cashing 3, and The Unexpected Cashing 4 to the Tree. > > I transfer The Unexpected Cashing 5 to Wes. > > I CFJ on: Wes CAN cash The Unexpected Cashing 5. > > Arguments: > > Let's say there is only one promise on the tree, the Unexpected Cashing 1. > It clearly could not be cashed directly from the tree, because if it were > transferred and cashed, the cashing condition would not be true. > > However, this also means that The Unexpected Cashing 2 could not be cashed, > as The Unexpected Cashing 1 could not be. > > Etc. > > However, when we get to The Unexpected Cashing 5, there are plenty of > qualifying cashable promises on the tree. Right? > Arguments: Also FALSE, because there is no permutation of cashings which is ultimately legal. This is a finite process and can be totally evaluated. -scshunt
