==============================  CFJ 3254  ==============================

    ais523 CAN destroy a ruble.


Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       18 Jul 2012 23:18:05 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    25 Jul 2012 20:40:26 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt:                01 Aug 2012 21:13:00 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

CFJs 3246-3248


Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Meanwhile, I really *would* like a non-trivial opinion here, so:
> I create the following promise:
>        Name: Ping2
>        Text: I transfer one ruble to ais523 and cash the promise entitled
>        Conditions required to be true for this promise not to be destroyed
>        cashed: 1=1.
> I transfer this promise (Ping2) to ais523.
> I create the following promise, "CFJ2", with this text:
>       I CFJ on the following statement, barring Murphy: ais523 CAN destroy
>               a ruble.
>       For arguments, see Callers' arguments in CFJs 3246-3248.
>   I transfer this promise (CFJ2) to ais523.

This is just a clever way to get more rubles out of me, isn't it? ;)

I transfer every ruble I own to G..

I create the following promise:

Name: Pong2
Text: I transfer one ruble to G. and cash the promise entitled 'Ping2'.
Conditions required to be true for this promise not to be destroyed when
cashed: 1=1.

I transfer Pong2 to G.

Then I cash Ping2.


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

Based on the arguments to CFJs 3121 & 3122, it appears that the
consensus among Agorans is that when an infinite rule-defined process
occurs, it does indeed occur infinitely, but instantaneously, leaving
the game in a single state afterwards. While the situation giving rise
to 3122 failed on a technicality similar to that which plagued the
original CFJs on this matter (see CFJ 3246), this one does not have
the same issues.

In eir arguments to CFJ 3122, H. Judge Murphy proposes that any such
action would necessarily introduce ambiguity into the gamestate and
fail, but I do not agree with this line of reasoning. I see nothing in
the rules to indicate that an ambiguity causes an action to fail
inherently; rather, it is the requirement of unamibiguousness written
out in Rule 478 that prevents actions by announcement from being
ambiguous. This does not prevent other ambiguity and, indeed,
ambiguity has been held to exist in situations historically---there
have been . There is, additionally, a poltiical aspect to it, as
outlined by H. Judge Pavitra in CFJ 2650, which is a vital read for
anyone wishing to settle this case.

Therefore, the first question is to address the case as per Rule 217.
Is the text of the rules "silent, inconsistent, or unclear"?

As I have already mentioned, I do not find any reason to conclude that
any of the actions related to pinging and ponging failed. In
particular, we have a well-defined sequence of actions: the cashing of
the Ping2 and Pong2 promises, and the transferring of a ruble (or
various different rubles) back and forth. There is nothing in the
rules to indicate that any of them fail, and explicit statements to
the effect that they succeed. Therefore the actions succeeded. As
indicated before, they all happened "instantaneously": ordered with
respect to each other, but each coming before any subsequent action in
that or any other message.

The question, then, is what the resulting game state is. There was no
final owner of the ruble, as for any action transferring it to an
individual, there was an opposite action transferring it away. Since
there are countable infinities of these actions, we can actually get
fancy and say that G. transferred his ruble away twice as many times
as he did receive it, or the like.

This actually leads us to a nice analogy from mathematics, which is of
a limit. The sequence of ais523's ruble ownership is 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 ,
1, .... This sequence is non-convergent---that is, mathematics
interprets this sequence as having no "value at infinity", whereas it
might interpret a different sequence as having a different value. In
this case, I think that the analogy is apt, and we can conclude that
the owner at the end is simply undefined, and that is in fact crucial,
because of Rule 2166: "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it
is owned by the Lost and Found Department." I feel that this decision
fits with the common sense and best interest of the game. 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.

There is the question, then, of whether it was the same ruble over and
over again or all of G's rubles. There is no particular indication of
one over the other. However, Rule 2166 again comes to the rescue with
"Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible." This can,
and in my view, should be interpreted as implying that the distinction
between rubles of the same owner is irrelevant since they are always
interchangeable, and that distinction is hence effectively
non-existent. Common sense and good of the game then lead us to apply
the simplest interpretation to the situation, which is that only one
ruble's worth of ambiguity is created. As for CFJ 3256, it the rules
simply do not allow for drawing this distinction with currencies.
Moreover, by using the word "currency", it implies that, much like a
real-life currency, in a situation like this, the actual details of
the changing of hands are not important, hence I judge CFJ 3256 to be

As a result of these judgments, the question of strong vs. weak
paradox does not come into play.