==============================  CFJ 3248  ==============================

    In the last few minutes, G. transferred exactly one ruble to ais523.


Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           07 Jul 2012 06:45:48 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    16 Jul 2012 06:30:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt:                18 Jul 2012 23:22:02 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

First, apologies for barring H. Judge Murphy; as e has judged both of
the precedents that are under review here, this is just in the interest
of looking for a second set of eyes on these cases.

These cases are looking for an explicit revisit (and possible
overturning or substantial narrowing of) CFJs 2737 and 3121.

CFJ 2737 blandly and generally forbade infinite processes by calling
them "at odds with ordinary language".  However, the rulings were silent
on exactly where, in any given situation, we decide this departure
between finite and infinite language occurs.  In other words, where is
the chain broken?

In CFJ 2737, it's pretty clear that pledges (at the time) did not
trigger legal events (e.g. explicit actions), as pledging to do
something wasn't actually doing it.  So it's reasonable that forbidding
self-calling pledges was considered an extension of ISID (e.g. it's the
same as forbidding "I cast an infinite number of votes").

On the other hand, CFJ 3121 deals with explicitly-triggered events in
the rules (where a promise can trigger another promise).  However, the
precedent here blandly refers to CFJ 2737, without noticing the crucial
difference: the Rules here DO make it possible for a promise to trigger
another promise.

I accept that it's a potential interpretation, though one I disagree
with, to directly forbid self-calling (direct recursion), although no
rule actually does forbid self-calling.  (In fact, original drafts of
the promise rule show that forbidding nested promises was considered,
but dropped on purpose to allow it, so the "legislative will" at the
time was to allow such things, for what it's worth).

Now, examine the two promises (Ping and Pong) in the current case.

Pong, a legal process, is not self-referential, and knows nothing about
the conditions of Ping.  And Ping knows nothing of Pong.  No single step
in Ping or Pong is IMPOSSIBLE.  But, if we are to apply CFJ 2737, we
would say that "the whole" is somehow impossible.  So, the question
before the court is to determine *where* the breakdown occurs (hence the
set of CFJs).

The first ruble transfer?  Nothing wrong with that.  Calling a promise
from another promise?  Nothing wrong there, either.  And so on.  If we
say "it just fails" and nothing happens (i.e. not even the first ruble
transfer occurs), ask this: if we replaced the conditions of Pong with
"this promise is destroyed if it has been cashed 5 times", the process
becomes finite, therefore "allowed":  but why should this change in Pong
affect the first operation of Ping, before Pong is even called?

Quite simply, any attempt to apply CFJ 2737 "automatically and
generally" (that is, "fairly") to any loop, thus stopping the loop from
doing anything, is in effect asking Agora to solve the Halting Problem!

The other approach, of course, is to say, on a meta-level (one level
removed from the process) we recognize that a particular trigger has
"fallen into a loop" and select an arbitrary point to hit Ctl-C ("hey,
the loop works once, but not twice.  or three times").  But the
arbitrary nature of this (again, who gets the ruble?) is undesirable.

There may be various options that stop this chain.  For example, one
could say (in the manner of Go) that a "board position" (gamestate)
can't "repeat" (e.g. once the ruble transfer loops, that's it).
However, it would be trivially possible to do redo this loop to create
sequentially-numbered golems (for example) so as to create a propagating
state that does repeat (we have not done so out of respect for
recordkeepors) so this in itself is an equally arbitrary choice.

Faced with a choice between IMPOSSIBLE (solving the Halting Problem) and
the arbitrary (deciding where the loop breaks), I think it's far better
to select a third option:  substantially narrow or overturn the
precedent of CFJ 2737 (for processes in general) or 3121 (for promises
specifically).  That is, state that while direct self-reference (a
promise promising itself) is generally not possible, if a finite step
calls a finite step, and it *eventually* loops back, the only way to
prevent it is direct legislation (e.g. stating legislatively that a step
of type P, (e.g. "a promise") can't call/trigger any other step of type
P and not through arbitrary judicial Halting of the process.

In the absence of that legislation, this argues for FALSE on whether
"exactly one" ruble was transferred, and UNDECIDABLE on whether a ruble
CAN be destroyed by ais523.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

CFJ 1980 found that this sort of loop would create a paradox
if it were in the rules rather than a contract. This one is driven by
the rules.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

You specified "Conditions: This promise is not destroyed
on cashing.".  Since it's unclear whether the promise not being
destroyed on cashing is a condition for the promise to be cashed (in
which case the promise couldn't be cashed) or a condition for the
promise not to be destroyed on cashing (in which case, er... wait a
second), it has no effect, so both promises were cashed once and then


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Henkin's theorem (which in effect says, that in a suitable
logical system, an equivalent to "this sentence is true" is true).


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Apparently it's more commonly known as Löb's Theorem.

Meanwhile, the more serious counterargument: the only sensible
interpretation is as an abbreviation for "Conditions to not be destroyed
on cashing: True".


Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

I must avoid the question raised by these and judge TRUE, TRUE, and
FALSE, respectively, as the creation of the promises Ping and Pong was
unclear as to the nature of the conditions. They could be either
conditions under which the promise can be cashed or conditions under
which the promise is not destroyed (it is entirely reasonable for
"this promise is not destroyed upon cashing" to be a condition for
cashing). Thus their creation was ambiguous and invalid.

I would gladly judge this case again given the opportunity.


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

[CotC: same judgement with arguments was sent to a-d]