Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3254-56 assigned to scshunt

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Therefore,
>> at any defineable time after the original cashing of Ping2, a ruble
>> that was bounced back and forth was in fact owned by the LFD. Thus
>> ais523 owned no rubles at the initiation of CFJs 3254 and 3255, so I
>> judge them both FALSE.
>
> Actually, on re-reading, I wonder if this introduces a meta-contradiction.
> If we assume that "any definable time" afterwards the ruble belonged to
> the LFD, then on ais523's "next" transfer (for any given value of "next"),
> the transfer simply fails because ais523 did not have a ruble.
>
> Which means that, for G.'s next transfer, e transferred a different one of
> eir rubles to ais523 (which entered the loop, and likewise goes to the LFD)
> and then another, then another... until G's rubles are all with the LFD,
> and the transfers stop.
>
> But if the transfers stop with all of both parties' rubles belonging
> to the LFD, then the process is finite in the first place!
>
> Maybe it's not UNDECIDABLE; maybe the asset rule takes rubles to the LFD,
> but nothing halts the promise cycle.  Maybe (now that ais523 and I are
> drained of rubles), any ruble given to us in future instantly enters the
> cycle and ends up the LFD... :)
>
> -G.