> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
> fine too: all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
> Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).
>
> I'm not seeing PARADOX results or anything more complicated than
> that - am I missing something there?
Trigon said “for the record, [e] thought the same as [me] with regard to
interpretations.” If e continues to have that view, then the new CFJ is TRUE
and no PARADOX results.
OTOH, if Trigon has changed eir mind, then e might attempt to deliver a FALSE
judgement in the initial CFJ. But I think that attempt would lead to an
“irresolvable logical situation.” In particular, if my judgement is EFFECTIVE
then Trigon’s isn’t; if Trigon’s is EFFECTIVE then mine isn’t; and question of
*which* judgement is EFFECTIVE depends on which judge (me or Trigon) actually
issued the EFFECTIVE judgement, which depends on whether I EFFECTIVELY
deputised for PM, which depends on the judgement in the Round Robin CFJ that I
tried to certiorari (thereby causing an irresolvable circularity).
Basically, if Trigon tried to judge it FALSE, we would have two judgements that
are mutually inconsistent, that each if valid would prevent the other’s judge
from issuing the inconsistent judgement, and with no way to decide between
them.
Hope this is a clear description of the possible paradox.
