[s-b] [Oracle] CFI 122

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:01:16 -0400
> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [s-b] Let's have fun with timing, shall we?
> 
> A recent proposal attempted to put my name back to what it was prior
> to the point where I stopped having one, but it didn't give me the
> name I most recently intended to give myself. I'm therefore currently
> named Rule 700. So to fix this tragic oversight, I change my name to
> "Respected One."
> 
> (Note: this is still permitted, and it still appears to have the same
> effect as before. Not having a name is of course now on the LOGAS,
> though you have three ndays to acquire one if you don't have one.)
> 
> Then I change my name to Craig B. Daniel, and then at last I change it
> to teucer, which is what I actually want it to be.
> 
> I now submit a CFI: "I have exactly one name."
> 
> Arguments: Rule 21 tells us that events occur on reaching the Public
> Forum, and that events not caused by agents (including the loss of the
> name "Respected One") occur when the rules indicate. Rule 49.B.4,
> which defines the unique behavior of the name "Respected One",
> indicates that the well-documented vanishing happens "whenever a
> player who has the title 'Respected One' fails to meet the
> aforementioned condition" - which I fail to meet.
> 
> I see two obvious interpretations of this situation. First, the name
> changes all apply, in order, on this message reaching the PF, after
> which I would lose my name if it were to be Respected One. In this
> case, the CFI is plainly TRUE - my name is teucer, and I have no other
> names. I find this hard to believe, since it requires positing a gap
> between name changes during which I failed to meet the specified
> condition and must have lost my name. Second, the name changes occur
> sequentially, and immediately after the first one but before the
> second, I lost my name. My name is now blank, and I have three ndays
> to correct this unfortunate situation on pain of ass-kicking. In this
> situation, obviously the CFI is FALSE - I have *zero* names. But it
> also seems incorrect, since it suggests that somehow two things that
> reach the PF at precisely the same moment can not only be ordered but
> can in fact have things happening in between them - in which case, the
> obvious question the judge should be prepared to answer is precisely
> *when* I could possibly have lost my name; it must be after the
> "Respected One" name change reached the PF and yet before the "Craig
> B. Daniel" change did so.
> 
> Given that these are both clearly wrong, the judgement of UNDECIDED
> seems indicated. But there is a third possibility, and the fact that I
> see no clear reason why it is incorrect means that the falsity of the
> other two is not paradoxical after all. The last interpretation is
> that the name changes are simultaneous, and thus gave me not one but
> three names. I lose one of these, obviously.
> 
> This third case is confused, however, by the fact that the CFI is
> happening in the same post as the name changes, reaching the PF at the
> same time they do. The judgement is supposed to indicate the truth of
> the statement at the time of the Call, rather than of the judgement.
> Yet the call is problematically simultaneous with the name changes! If
> it came before them, it would be trivially TRUE - my name at that time
> was Rule 700. If it comes after them, it is trivially FALSE, because I
> have two or three names (two if it somehow also comes after the loss
> of "Respected One," which has the same criticism as the second
> interpretation above, and false if it somehow comes before that part,
> which has the same problem as interpretation number one - this
> quasiparadox is why I phrased the CFI such that this doesn't have to
> be decidable for the CFI to remain FALSE in this condition). But how
> many names do I have during the process of changing my name? This is
> not an easy question for a judge to answer, and I'm glad I'm
> submitting this CFI rather than judging it.
> 
> The third interpretation is problematic for another reason - game
> custom presumes, and the rules certainly used to indicate (though I
> can't find where they do so now, if in fact they do) that actions
> posted in one message are resolved in order. But if this is no longer
> supported by the text of the rules, then the phrasing of Rule 21 means
> we must instead favor simultaneous resolution. While I can't at this
> moment see any problem with this, other than the fact that it allows
> me to have multiple names (not actually problematic, but it might
> become a headache for the registrar if it catches on), I suspect
> strange corner cases will be found, whether by accident or design.
> 


This is CFI 122. I assign CFI 122 to Judge Murphy. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business