On Jul 30, 2013 6:35 AM, "Fool" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29/07/2013 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Fool<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even >>> mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, >>> with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise >>> with notice IFF the sentence in its "destruction by author condition" slot >>> is true. So: >> >> >> If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author >> of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then >> the author CAN destroy that promise with notice. >> >> I fail to see the alleged biconditional. >> > > As discussed, promise destruction is secured. There is no other instrument allowing a promise to be destroyed.
How about cashing it?
