From - Mon Sep 25 12:24:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sst6i6.qi1.30ahi43 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA15848 for agora-discussion-list; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:07:12 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA15845 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:07:10 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA64629 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:05:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au(130.194.1.91) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma064627; Mon, 25 Sep 00 11:05:51 +1100 Received: (from gardner@localhost) by silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA29375 for agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:02:22 +1100 (EST) From: Steve Gardner Message-Id: <200009250002.LAA29375@silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au> Subject: DIS: Repost of CFJ 842 To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (Agora Nomic Discussion List) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:02:22 +1100 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sst6i6.qi1.30ahi43 Andre was asking about CFJ 842. Here it is. I don't think it bears on the recent amendment (or non-amendment) of R1042. ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 842 Rule 1469 should be interpreted so that when the destruction of a Treasury which contains a negative amount of any Currency is required by the Rules, that Treasury is not destroyed, since the transfer of the negative Currencies within does not happen. ====================================================================== Judge: favor Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, favor, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Pascal, Swann, Vlad, Wes, Vanyel Not Eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: On Hold: Dave Bowen, Chuck, Steve 1005: Effects: favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Mon, 1 Jan 1996 22:43:01 +0001 Assigned to favor, 4 January 1995, 02:37 MET Judged FALSE by favor, 4 January 1996, 16:48 EST ====================================================================== Reasons & arguments : none. ====================================================================== Relevant Rules : 1472, 1469. I respectfully request of the Judge an Injuction to annotate Rule 1469 with this Statement. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: This is actually FALSE on two different grounds: Rule 1469/2 doesn't say anything about what happens when Treasury-destruction in general occurs; it just talks about what happens when a Treasury-possessing entity is destroyed. Given that it lists two separate events (the transfer of Currencies to Mintors, and the destruction of the Treasury), one might tend to assume that Treasury-destruction in general does *not* imply or require transfers to Mintors, else the Rule would not have bothered to mention both. So as far as 1469/2 is concerned, Treasury-destruction in general need not be limited by the possibility of Transfers to Mintors. If we look at the Treasury-destructions that 1469/2 itself requires, I can find nothing that says that it occurs only if the transfers to Mintors are successful. The relevant part of 1469/2 says "If A, then X and Y". If some other rule with a higher precendence forbids X, then if A, I would expect that the effect of 1469/2 would be Y. That is, if a Treasury-possessing entity is destroyed, and the stuff in its Treasury cannot be transferred to the Mintor, the Treasury is still destroyed anyway. So FALSE again. One interesting note: if the transfers to Mintors are in fact impossible, this text from 1469/2: > A legal notification of the destruction of a Treasury is also, > by implication, a report of the transfer of all Currencies > within that Treasury to their Mintors as required by this Rule. is rather paradoxical, in that it says that the notification of a Treasury destruction can under some circumstances also be a report of something that did not in fact occur! Ah, well... The injunction is, obviously, denied. Respectfully submitted, Judge favor -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au |