Ed Murphy wrote:
>Out of curiosity, how early did you realize that you were importing
>the Ship of Theseus paradox?
I didn't, as I'm not. I'm confident that we'll end up with either the
extensional or the intensional identity mechanism for partnerships.
The paradox arises from using both mechanis
Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
addition under this rule?
Not under my proposed rule. I based it on the expectation that the
change of partners results in the
quazie wrote:
>If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
>in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
>addition under this rule?
Not under my proposed rule. I based it on the expectation that the
change of partners results in the partnership be
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "transparent partnerships":
{{{
Enact a rule with title "Transparent Personhood" and text:
When a non-natural person becomes a player, e is obliged to as
soon as possible announce the legal theory by which e is a person.
4 matches
Mail list logo
