On 4/9/2024 6:57 PM, nix via agora-official wrote:
On 4/7/24 07:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q,
either by directly cashing it, or by transferring it from the Library
to emself and then cashing it."
I number this CFJ 4075.
I call for judgement on the statement "I CAN cash the promise
'Awakening'."
I number this CFJ 4076.
I assign CFJ 4075 to kiako. I assign CFJ 4076 to kiako.
Below is my draft-judgement on CFJs 4075 and 4076.
I am currently fielding gratuitous arguments towards R217 or previous
rulings on any of the four possible resolutions: I am not sure where
precedent is established or where the rules already claim specific
resolutions is correct, and don't think I know enough Agoran history to
know what to look for.
---
{{DRAFT JUDGEMENT OF CFJs 4075 AND 4076}}
Consider these four statements:
(A) I take Promise Q from the library.
(B) I transfer Promise Q from myself to Yachay.
(C) I take Promise Q from the Library.
(D) I cash Promise Q.
From these, there are four meaningful resolutions:
[W] Statements (A) and (D) succeed, while the others fail.
[X] Statements (C) and (D) succeed, while the others fail.
[Y] All statements fail.
[Z] The statements form a paradox.
where:
- [W] and [X] warrant judgements 4075 FALSE and 4076 TRUE.
- [Y] warrants judgements 4075 TRUE and 4076 FALSE.
- [Z] warrants one of 4075 and 4076 judged PARADOXICAL.
-----------------
ARGUMENTS FOR [W]
i. We suppose (D) succeeds. Then one of (A) or (C) succeeds.
ii. Since (A) comes first, (A) should succeed.
iii. (B) fails, because if (B) were to succeed, (A) must fail.
iv. (C) fails because (A) succeeded.
One could argue for (iii) by claiming that is it IMPOSSIBLE for a player
to transfer a promise taken from the library.
-----------------
ARGUMENTS FOR [X]
i. We again suppose (D) succeeds. Then one of (A) or (C) succeeds.
ii. (B) fails, to avoid a paradox/indeterminacy.
iii. (A) fails, because (A) implies (B), and (B) must fail.
iv. (C) succeeds, because (A) fails and (D) succeeds.
This holds if (B) "interrupted" the ability for (A) to resolve, forcing
(A) to fail (which consequentially forces (B) to fail.
(One can also arrive at this conclusion by stopping at (viii) in
ARGUMENTS FOR [Z], since it has been decided that (A) and (B) fail,
while (C) and (D) succeed.)
-----------------
ARGUMENTS FOR [Y]
i. Suppose (D) succeeds.
ii. (A) should succeed.
iii. Since (A) succeeds, (B) is POSSIBLE and so succeeds.
iv. Since (B) succeeds, (D) fails.
v. Since (D) fails, (A) fails.
vi. Since (A) fails, (B) fails.
vii. All of (A) through (D) must fail.
This presupposes that (vii)-(viii) in ARGUMENTS FOR [Z] are invalid.
It's entirely fair to assume this; (ii)-(iv) determine that (D) must
fail, and so we can't later decide that (D) should actually succeed.
-----------------
ARGUMENTS FOR [Z]
Extend ARGUMENTS FOR [Y] with the following (replacing (vii)):
vii. Since (B) fails, (C) could succeed.
viii. Since (C) can now succeed, (D) succeeds.
ix. (A) should succeed; (C) fails.
The only big jump here is (ix), saying that if (D) succeeds, (A) MUST be
able to succeed. I'm personally more convinced that (A) fails by
ARGUMENTS TOWARDS [X] (or that (iii) is incorrect by ARGUMENTS TOWARDS [W].)
-----------------
Since [W] and [X] have the same judgements, I'm considering which to be
the correct one outside my jurisdiction, so plan to remain silent on it
if sufficient arguments towards both is possible.
{{END OF DRAFT JUDGEMENT}}
--
kiako
