Index ← 3013 CFJ 3014 3015 → text
==============================  CFJ 3014  ==============================

    If the promise quoted in evidence with the alleged condition "This
    promise is not destroyed upon being cashed" was cashed, then it
    would not be destroyed.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       26 Apr 2011 00:07:56 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                26 Apr 2011 15:42:32 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    27 Apr 2011 19:05:14 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     28 Apr 2011 13:44:35 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  28 Apr 2011 20:28:24 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

There are unambiguous ways to accomplish the intent (e.g.
the condition "1 = 1" or any other tautology), but it seems too far a
stretch to interpret this as equivalent to such a construction (which
tautology should be chosen)?  The clause could be interpreted
literally, in which case it has the same ambiguity of truth value as
"This statement is true"; but the intent is obvious, so the ambiguity
should be resolved in line with it.


Caller's Evidence:

scshunt wrote:

> On 11-04-25 05:31 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I create a Promise with the text
>> { Let N be the number of the specified proposal.
>>   I retract any votes on the Proposal N and vote to ENDORSE the player
>> cashing this promise.
>> }
>> and the conditions
>> { The entity cashing this promise, in the same message as e cashes it,
>> transfers me 10 points and either transfers me an additional 30 points
>> and destroys this promise, or else transfers it to the Tree. }
>> and then transfer that Promise to the Tree.
>> -scshunt
> Oops; I publish a promise identical except that has the additional
> condition {This promise is not destroyed upon being cashed}.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

I read the statement as a pretty clear "This statement is
true" analogue. However, the situation is a bit more interesting than
that. A promise cannot be cashed unless all its conditions are true.
Thus, if the condition in question is false, it is vacuously true (as
the condition cannot be cashed at all), leading to a contradiction; but
if it's true, there's no contradiction. In such a case, being true is
the most sensible truth value for the statement. The statement of 3014
has a very clear conditional, which works much the same way but is even
less ambiguous; if the promise can be cashed at all, it isn't destroyed.
Thus, definitely TRUE. (As a side effect, it turns out that the
condition in question doesn't restrict the promise in question from
being cashed after all.)