============================== CFJ 3295 ==============================
I CAN nominate Tweedledee in the Herald election
Called by ais523: 28 Jan 2013 01:36:31 GMT
Assigned to G.: 09 Feb 2013 17:52:05 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.: 15 Feb 2013 18:12:06 GMT
Only active players can be nominated. So is Tweedledee active
or inactive? It's easy to prove that Tweedledee and Tweedledum have the
same activity status (they become active and inactive in sync). I think
it's paradoxical what that status is, though. There's an infinite
regress of acting on behalf going on here. Previously this has been
restricted due to the problems of sending infinitely long messages, or
the rules preventing promises from cashing each other, but recent
proposals make it possible to just send a message on behalf. The reason
I created two promises to hold the text of the messages is to create
something tracked by the rules that I can refer to without having to
create an infinitely long message.
(Note that there are no promises cashed in the loop itself, merely used
to set them up.)
I create two Slave Golems, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
I send the following message on behalf of Tweedledee:
I create a promise "Contrariwise", with the text "I perform the
specified action", and the condition to not be destroyed when cashed
"There is a rule with ID number 101", and transfer it to ais523.
I send the following message on behalf of Tweedledum:
I create a promise "Nohow", with the text "I perform the specified
action", and the condition to not be destroyed when cashed "There is a
rule with ID number 101", and transfer it to ais523.
I transfer Tweedledee to Tweedledum.
I transfer Tweedledum to Tweedledee.
I create a promise, "Text Repository X", with the following text:
I become inactive.
I send the message "I become inactive" on behalf of Tweedledum.
I send a message with the same text as the promise "Text Repository Y"
on behalf of Tweedledum.
I create a promise, "Text Repository Y", with the following text:
I become active.
I send the message "I become active" on behalf of Tweedledee.
I send a message with the same text as the promise "Text Repository X"
on behalf of Tweedledee.
I cash Contrariwise, specifying the action as causing Tweedledum to send
a message with the same text as the promise "Text Repository Y".
I initiate an election for Herald. (The office is currently vacant.) If
I've miscalculated and the office isn't vacant, to avoid ambiguity, I
spend 1 ruble to initiate an election for Herald.
Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:
Activity is a switch. Per R2162, when a switch's value
would become indeterminate, "the instance instead takes on its last
determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default
value". Since there's no reason to prefer to stop the infinite chain at any
point, we can't find a "last determinate" value, but so we should use the
default value, which is Active.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
By itself, "I cause X to send a message with the same text
as Y" may be reasonable shorthand, but isn't there some precedent that
we should take the global view and consider the shorthand unreasonable
because it is being used to effectively send an infinitely long
Judge G.'s Arguments:
On my first pass, I was convinced that this infinite loop might succeed
(under the precedent of CFJ 3254) leaving the activity switch of
Tweedledee in an indeterminate state for any time after ais523 cashed
However, re-examining omd's gratuitous arguments, I am focusing on the
following phrase: 'I send a message with the same text as the promise
"Text Repository X"'. The Caller states that the notion of using this
loop to "send a message" rather than perform an action is central to eir
scam avoiding various other protections in place in the rules.
However, "I send a message with the same text as..." is, as a standalone
statement, an administrative ISID convenience, just like "I perform the
above-quoted actions" or "me too". In this case, though, the last part
of the replacement (Text Repository X) is circularly replacing, and so it
is uncertain, changing and/or ambiguous text in and of itself. In other
words, since the referent 'same text as' is ambiguous, the replacement
fails. Note that this 'text replacement' is a different situation than
R2162, which involved circular cashing of promises with set, not
Therefore, ais523's attempt to 'send a message with the same text as'
fails, as it refers to something ambiguous, and no changes occurred in
Tweedledee's activity at all. Since e started out as Active, e could be