Index ← 3878 CFJ 3879 3880 → text
===============================  CFJ 3879  ===============================

      After the first instant of the existence of the Supertask
      Experiment Redux contract, Nathan is the owner of the first Dock
      asset created by the Supertask Experiment Redux contract.


Caller:                        Nathan

Judge:                         Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Nathan:                                 25 Aug 2020 18:21:12
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      30 Aug 2020 18:41:00
Judged FALSE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  06 Sep 2020 13:38:36


Caller's Evidence:

Below, contained within the "{}", or curly braces, is the contract 
entitled The Supertask Experiment Redux.


Name: The Supertask Experiment Redux

Parties: Nathan

Only Nathan may be a party to this contract. Nathan may not destroy this 
contract. All actions in this contract happen under a "I say, I do, 
therefore it happens" basis, meaning that all actions are taken 
instantly, without implicitly advancing time. As the rules do not 
prohibit it, in this contract, multiple actions may happen at the same 
time. Time does not advance during this contract's effects unless 
explicitly stated by this contract or the rules. This contract is 
capable of owning assets.

For the purposes of this contract, an instant is defined to be a 
specific moment in time, with infinite instants in any given division or 
unit of time. An example of an instant would be precisely 1.87856 
seconds after midnight on July 12, 1983. Any measurement of precise time 
can be understood to be an instant. An instant can not cover more than a 
single instance of precise time. For example, an instant can not be the 
entirety of the second after midnight on July 12, 1983, but precisely 
one second after midnight on July 12, 1983 can be understood to be an 

Multiple actions can resolve in the same instant. If an action starts 
and resolves in the same instant, that action takes no time. Actions 
that resolve in the same instant can be dependent upon prior actions in 
that instant. For example, in the same announcement, one can transfer 
coins from a locker or similar contract to themselves, and then perform 
an action with those coins, both of those actions happening in the same 
instant despite the second action being dependent on the first one. 
Actions dependent on another action can be started and resolved at the 
same instant as the action it is dependent on without passing time.

This contract and any parties to this contract consent to every transfer 
of Dock assets.

A Dock asset is an asset with default owner Nathan. The class of 
entities which can own a Dock asset is restricted to Nathan and this 
contract. If the ownership of a Dock asset were to be transferred to the 
Lost and Found Department, ownership is instead transferred to whoever 
most recently had the Dock Asset, not including the Lost and Found 
Department. A Dock asset can be transferred to this contract or any 
party to this contract. Consent of parties to this contract or the 
consent of this contract itself is not needed to transfer a Dock asset 
to this contract or to parties of this contract. This contract can 
create a Dock asset at any instant.

Under rule 2577, "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by 
announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by 
its backing document". This backing document for Dock assets specifies 
that a Dock asset is transferred, without announcement, between any 
players that consent to this contract and this contract if any non-zero 
number of two conditions are met, with the specific transfer stated 
after the condition. These conditions are:

1. If a dock asset is owned by Nathan. The Dock asset is transferred 
from Nathan to this contract.

2. If a dock asset is owned by this contract. The Dock asset is 
transferred from Nathan to this contract.

This contract creates one Dock asset.



Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Judge Pavitra's arguments in CFJ 2650 are a thesis-worthy discussion of
philosophy and "types" of paradox in Agora, and very much worth reading in
this context (should be part of a FAQ about paradoxes):

An example where this sort of thing did create a paradox, but the paradox
was error-trapped by the LF&D, can be found in CFJ 3254:

A relevant finding in CFJ 3254: while Contracts might create internal
paradoxes, the gamestate is generally error-trapped against that by the
LF&D.  So a key untested loophole for this case is that the error-trapping
clause in Rule 2576/2 might allow backing documents to modify/override
LF&D behavior, and maintain the indeterminacy:

>      If an asset's owner would otherwise be nonexistent, indeterminate,
>      or invalid, then it is owned by the Lost and Found Department (if
>      possible) or destroyed (otherwise), subject to modification by its
>      backing document.


Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus' Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3879 to be trivially FALSE because the contract only
provides a means for the transfer of the Dock asset between the contract
and Nathan, therefore it would be created in Nathan's possession and
instantaneously transferred to the contract.

The malformed clause is specifically:

> 2. If a dock asset is owned by this contract. The Dock asset is
> transferred from Nathan to this contract.