Index ← 3324 CFJ 3325 3326 → text
```==============================  CFJ 3325  ==============================

Wes CAN cash The Unexpected Cashing 5.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                           19 May 2013 23:17:15 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     27 May 2013 22:31:15 GMT
Judged FALSE by Walker:                 01 Jun 2013 14:18:56 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Let's say there is only one promise on the tree, the Unexpected Cashing 1.
It clearly could not be cashed directly from the tree, because if it were
transferred and cashed, the cashing condition would not be true.

However, this also means that The Unexpected Cashing 2 could not be cashed,
as The Unexpected Cashing 1 could not be.

Etc.

However, when we get to The Unexpected Cashing 5, there are plenty of
qualifying cashable promises on the tree.  Right?

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

I create the following 5 promises for each of [N] below equal to
1,2,3,4,5. (specifying this as a single action is an administrative
convenience, as they are non-fungible promises).

Title:  The Unexpected Cashing [N].
Text:  Hello world [N].
Conditions for Cashing:  There are no promises owned by the tree entitled
'The Unexpected Cashing [M]' where [M] is a number higher than [N], and
there is at least one promise owned by the tree, that CAN be cashed via
transfer and cashing from the tree, whose title is in part 'The Unexpected
Cashing'.

I transfer The Unexpected Cashing 1, The Unexpected Cashing 2,
The Unexpected Cashing 3, and The Unexpected Cashing 4 to the Tree.

I transfer The Unexpected Cashing 5 to Wes.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

Also FALSE, because there is no permutation of cashings which is ultimately
legal. This is a finite process and can be totally evaluated.

========================================================================```