I tried to win this way once, I think precedent has something to say along
the lines of "the liar paradox is too simple and does not count"
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:00 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> The below is CFJ 3768. I assign it to Trigon.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:16 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I CFJ: "A party to the contract in evidence CAN act on behalf of the
> > other party to transfer a coin.'
> >
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Contract:
> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-August/041185.html
> >
> > Consent of a second party:
> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-August/041186.html
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 1742/21 ("Contracts"):
> >
> > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
> > as permitted by the contract's text:
> >
> > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
> >
> > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract.
> >
> > * By announcement, take liquid assets from the contract.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > {
> >
> > The contract exists because two parties (G. and I) have consented to it,
> > and neither has ceased being party to the contract.
> >
> > The contract states that
> >
> > If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to this
> > contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
> > behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.
> >
> > This contract, subject to a conditional, permits a party to act on
> > behalf of another party to it. Thus, whether or not Rule 1742 states
> > that I CAN act on behalf of another party is directly dependent on the
> > conditional specified by the contract. However, this conditional is a
> > paradoxical statement (the liar paradox). Thus, whether the Rule states
> > that I CAN act on behalf depends on a paradoxical statement. The other
> > part of the requirements is fulfilled, as I have not acted-on-behalf of
> > G. pursuant to this contract before.
> >
> > Considering the possible outcomes:
> >
> > FALSE: To reach this outcome one would need to find that "this statement
> > is false" is false, which is not a valid assessment of that statement's
> > truthfulness (it is a paradox); FALSE is not appropriate.
> >
> > TRUE: As above, but would need to find the statement true; TRUE is not
> > appropriate.
> >
> > IRRELEVANT: Whether or not I can act on behalf of G. is absolutely
> > relevant because it is on the permissibility of an action that affects a
> > quantity that the Treasuror must keep track of; I make this further
> > relevant by actually attempting to perform this action later in the
> > message in which I submit this case. This is therefore relevant to the
> > game; IRRELEVANT is not appropriate.
> >
> > INSUFFICIENT: I have (hopefully) given the judge everything that e needs
> > to issue a judgement; INSUFFICIENT is not appropriate.
> >
> > DISMISS: I argue that PARADOXICAL is appropriate, so DISMISS is not
> > appropriate.
> >
> > PARADOXICAL: "appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable as a
> > result of a paradox", I argue that this is in fact true, as the
> > statement depends on the truthfulness of the liar paradox; I argue that
> > PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > And to make this RELEVANT: If I CAN do so, I cause G. to transfer 1 coin
> > to the below contract.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 8/3/19 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure I'll bite (but I'll leave the judging to someone else).
> > >
> > > I consent to the below contract.
> > >
> > > On 8/3/2019 1:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >> On 8/3/19 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, when I set this up with you I thought it would be a long
> > >>> discussion
> > >>> about whether contract precedence should be forwards or backwards or
> > >>> whether
> > >>> there were other general interpretation principles that could apply
> > >>> (with a
> > >>> good chance of a "nope - this is paradoxical" result). The
> > >>> importance of
> > >>> the exact Rule link language ('specify') only occurred to me this
> > >>> morning.
> > >>>
> > >>> -G.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Alright. Looks like act-on-behalf only uses "permitted" (not
> > >> "specified"), and I would guess (read: hope) that a contract that
> > >> permits something based on a paradox is paradoxical.
> > >>
> > >> Would you like to try again, with this contract (which I consent to)?
> > >>
> > >> {
> > >>
> > >> 0. Only G. and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any
> > >> other person becomes party to this contract, e immediately ceases to
> > >> be a party, and, the rest of the contract notwithstanding, CANNOT
> > >> perform any actions permitted by this contract.
> > >>
> > >> 1. A party to this contract CAN cease being a contract by
> announcement.
> > >>
> > >> 2. If "this statement is false" is a true statement, each party to
> > >> this contract is permitted to, and CAN, once, and only once, act on
> > >> behalf of the other party to transfer one (1) Coin to this contract.
> > >>
> > >> 3. A party to this contract is permitted to, and CAN, take any liquid
> > >> assets from this contract by announcement.
> > >>
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> Jason Cobb
> > >>
>
--
>From R. Lee
