(Failed to have a degree awarded)

„On contradictions arising from assuming that winning by escape velocity ends 
the game“
by Thimblefox (15th February, 2014)

-Introduction-

In this paper I intend to prove that the game ending does not follow from 
winning the game by escape velocity, and furthermore that it leads to 
contradiction. I also intend to show what contradictions arise from assuming 
that winning ends, or is in itself the act of ending the game. Finally I intend 
to show how winning the game without the game ending is the only logically 
consistent way of winning the game.

-Methodology-

For the purposes of this paper „winning“ refers to winning the game by reaching 
escape velocity. We will also define „is won“ as meaning that there exists at 
least one player having escape velocity. Furthermore „has been won“ means that 
a player has had escape velocity. „To end“ means here, being terminated.

-First thesis- 
The contradiction consisting in having escape velocity and a score of 0

If there is a player of Agora who has escape velocity, then there doesn’t exist 
a player that has escape velocity. Here I’m making the assumption that the rule 
is to be read logically, in which case you have „one or more specified players 
have achieved escape velocity“ and „all players’ scores are set to 0“ happening 
at the same time.‹1› This is obviously a contradiction, and not a logically 
consistent way of winning the game.

-Second thesis-
The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by/being the game 
ending, without the score being reset

Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) being 
ended and finally (c) the scores being reset. If the game is won and then ended 
(or winning is ending the game), the scores cannot be reset. The scores being 
reset follows necessarily from winning the game, but can’t follow if the game 
has ended. Therefore it isn’t possible for the game to be won, end and then 
finally the score being reset. Nor is it possible for the game to be won and 
end at the same time, being followed by the score being reset.

A counter-argument would be saying that if you want to play a new game (here: 
after the game has ended), you would have to reset the score. But this 
obviously doesn’t work out for the simple reason that there would be no game 
for which you could reset the score if the game had ended. 

For the same reason CFJ 3400 couldn’t have been judged TRUE, because it would 
then make a truth statement within the confines of the game itself about the 
game having been ended at a previous time, which would be a contradiction, 
because the game obviously hasn’t ended. This is therefore not a logically 
consistent way of winning the game.

-Third thesis-
The contradiction in achieving escape velocity followed by the score being 
reset and the game ending thereafter

Next up for consideration is for the game: (a) to be won, followed by (b) the 
score being reset, followed by (c) the game ending. If the game is won, the 
score will be reset. If the score has been reset, the game isn’t won anymore, 
therefore there would be no reason to end the game. From this it seems 
plausible to conclude that the game being ended must follow from the game being 
won. This is the only logically consistent way of winning the game, it does not 
however, and cannot, follow that the game is ended because of winning the game 
in this manner, as has been shown.

-Conclusions-

It follows from the above that resetting the score must follow from winning the 
game, and that this is the only logically consistent way of winning the game. 
It has also been shown that ending the game cannot be, nor can it follow from 
winning the game. Because in the first case resetting the score cannot follow 
from winning the game, which would be a contradiction. In the second case 
ending the game would be pointless, because it wouldn’t be won anymore due to 
the score reset. It also follows that the game cannot judge the game to have 
ended within the confines of the game itself. It would seem then that ending 
the game transcends the possibilities of what can be done within the framework 
of the game itself.

-Citation-

‹1› Excerpts from R2419.

-Further reading-

‹1› Agora-business, February 2014
‹2› Agora-discussion, February 2014
