[ANN] [IDISNEY] Disney Coin

[nili]

CHARACTER: The original "chicken and the egg" story sort of missing the point of the sperm.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: So the seed rule is the Hen and the rooster rule?

CHARACTER: No, that is the concurrent-rectification rule. the seed rule is a name that is two names.

DUALITY: It is two that become one by recognizing each other as the same thus as one.

NOUR: It is the one that becomes two, in order to recognized itself as one.

MINNIE: That is our way out of the Godel paradox.

NOUR: Which appears to be the identity paradox.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: And what is the paradox?

MICKEY: How can anyone know that I am me, if I am the only one that knows everything about me.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: That is why you need to prove it.

MICKEY: How can I prove that I am me, if I am the only one that knows everything about me?

MARK ZUCKERBERG: That is a maximalist's approach, you can use a single fact that only you know and prove that you know it

MINNIE: But how can you then prove that only you know it?

MICKEY: You can not! And that is my identity problem.

MINNIE: I thought not being mouse is your problem.

MICKEY: It was but now I also have a problem proving to you that I am Satoshi.

MINNIE: Or ruther some configuration of that name. After all it is Satoshi and he loves cryptograms.

[1713424463]

1713424463

[1713424463]

1713424463

[1713424463]

1713424463

[1713424463]

1713424463

[nili]

MINNIE: I thought not being mouse is your problem.

MICKEY: It was but now I also have a problem proving to you that I am Satoshi.

MINNIE: Or ruther some configuration of that name. After all it is Satoshi and he loves cryptograms.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: "How can you prove that only you know some unknown fact about yourself" , that is the question.

MICKEY: If you could , then you could prove to yourself that you are you.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Why would anyone need to do that do that?

MICKEY: To reach a self-recondition state of being.

MINNIE:: Or to make claims regarding any of their usernames.

CHARACTER: Obviously that is exactly what we are missing at this point.  

MICKEY: Is it possible at all?

CHARACTER: Possible as the one that becomes two, in order to recognized itself as one.

MICKEY: I must be stuck in the first stage then, the one that become two and can not recognize it.

MINNIE: I am afraid you all are, and unless we figure this thing out we are all going to be stuck here for ever.

CHARACTER: I think that we need to do what root support said to do.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: I don't see how performing a KYC procedure can help, considering all these documents are erased in the main-chain.

DUALITY: It can't prove that you are "you" but can make sure that there is only one of you.

CHARACTER: I guess executing this at the place of your birth takes care of that.

MINNIE: I have no clue how that can make any difference.

MICKEY: If you turn on 'location" on your documenting device then it dose.  

MINNIE:  Ok, lets picture it : I am there holding Nili's passport taking a selfie using a my phone with location and time indication  .

MICKEY: That is a solid proof for you being you.  

MINNIE: Maybe from that point and on , but it say nothing about me being Nili up to that point.

MICKEY: It dose since I can recognize you as that Nili.  

MINNIE: Thus it is kind of do the same as we where doing online when the network was still functioning... 

MARK ZUCKERBERG: OK greate, what now then? I don't see how it makes you recognize Satoshi.

DUALITY: That is why we all need to get there.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: And do what?

DUALITY: Solve the liar paradox.

[nili]

DUALITY: That is why we all need to get there.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: And do what?

DUALITY: Solve the liar paradox.

MINNIE: its not a paradox, its a proof for duality.

DUALITY: That is the solution! A paradox is always a proof for some conceptual mistake.

MICKEY: If a paradox is a proof for a mistake, Can I use a paradox to prove my identity.

MINNIE:: It should work, but we need to find the paradox.

CHARACTER: Mickey got it already

MICKEY: How can anyone know that I am me, if I am the only one that knows everything about me

CHARACTER: lets use some simple characters to illustrate this .

X: I am Y.

Y: You are a liar.

X: You Just proved that you exist

Y: And you proved that you lied.

X: Thus we both proved you spoke the truth.

Y: What is the paradox then?

X: How can anyone prove that I lie if I am the only one that know it?

Y: Since we just proved that you are not me.

[nili]

MICKEY: How can anyone know that I am me, if I am the only one that knows everything about me

CHARACTER: lets use some simple characters to illustrate this .

X: I am Y.

Y: You are a liar.

X: You Just proved that you exist

Y: And you proved that you lied.

X: Thus we both proved you spoke the truth.

Y: What is the paradox then?

X: How can anyone prove that I lie if I am the only one that know it?

Y: Since we just proved that you are not me.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Oh boy, more characters.

MINNIE: Not simply characters, it is deities.

[nili]

MICKEY: How can anyone know that I am me, if I am the only one that knows everything about me

CHARACTER: lets use some simple characters to illustrate this .

X: I am Y.

Y: You are a liar.

X: You Just proved that you exist

Y: And you proved that you lied.

X: Thus we both proved you spoke the truth.

Y: What is the paradox then?

X: How can anyone prove that I lie if I am the only one that know it?

Y: Since we just proved that you are not me.

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Oh boy, more characters.

MINNIE: Not simply characters, it is deities.

X: The question in question is, "how can Bob prove to Alice that he is Bob if Alice doesn't know Bob?".

MICKEY: No more characters pleas.....

[nili]

X: The question in question is, "how can Bob prove to Alice that he is Bob if Alice does't know Bob?".

MICKEY: No more characters pleas.....

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

[nili]

X: The question in question is, "how can Bob prove to Alice that he is Bob if Alice does't know Bob?".

MICKEY: No more characters pleas.....

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

MICKEY: This doesn't sound right, the question is not part of a dialogue it is asked by a third party.  

CHARACTER: Right, it is asked by the storyteller not by Bob.

Y: I play both.

X: Thus you have to prove both. You will have to prove  that you are "Y" and that "Y" is the one proving it, not some other storyteller.

Y: That sounds very complicated. maybe we need a narrator character in the dialogue.

CHARACTER: Mickey you should play that since we don't want to add more characters.

God: I can fit for the part. I'll do it!



 

[nili]

MICKEY: This doesn't sound right, the question is not part of a dialogue, it is asked by a third party.  

CHARACTER: Right, it is asked by the storyteller not by Bob.

Y: I play both.

X: Thus you have to prove both. You will have to prove  that you are "Y" and that "Y" is the one proving it, not some other storyteller.

Y: That sounds very complicated. maybe we need a narrator character in the dialogue.

CHARACTER: Mickey you should play the narrator since we don't want to add more characters.

God: I can fit for the part. I'll do it!



 

X: Don't take it personally, but I ruther see a mathematician in this role, not a God

Y: it's the director's decision who to cast for any of the roles.

MICKEY: But who should we cast as a director?

MINNIE: It calls for a consensus to decide on that.

X: Logically speaking, I have to agree with that.

Y: Me Too. It is true.

[nili]

MICKEY: This doesn't sound right, the question is not part of a dialogue, it is asked by a third party.  

CHARACTER: Right, it is asked by the storyteller not by Bob.

Y: I play both.

X: Thus you have to prove both. You will have to prove  that you are "Y" and that "Y" is the one proving it, not some other storyteller.

Y: That sounds very complicated. maybe we need a narrator character in the dialogue.

CHARACTER: Mickey you should play the narrator since we don't want to add more characters.

God: I can fit for the part. I'll do it!



 

X: Don't take it personally, but I ruther see a mathematician in this role, not a God

Y: it's the director's decision who to cast for any of the roles.

MICKEY: But who should we cast as a director?

MINNIE: It calls for a consensus to decide on that.

X: Logically speaking, I have to agree with that.

Y: Me Too. It is true.

God: Since we arrived at a consensus on the assumption that it is logical to use the consensus in order to decide on the director role., then it would make sense to extend the consensus in order to decide on who should play the narrator.

X: Logically speaking, I have to agree with that too.

Y: Me Too. It is a true statement, logically speaking I mean.

God: Thus it is also make sense to extend the consensus to agree on any thing.

MICKEY: Dose it make sense to give up logic altogether?

X: Then it is not going to make sense.

Y: We need logic to be able to make sense of deciding on the consensus rather then on the truth.

God: And this brings logic to a divine order.

X: Which is exactly what me and Y represent in this conversation.

Y: While you represent the consensus as a divinity.

God: That makes sense.

MICKEY: Great! now it also makes sense that God is indeed the narrator in our identity quest, and we can go back to that dialogue next.

[nili]

MICKEY: This doesn't sound right, the question is not part of a dialogue, it is asked by a third party.  

CHARACTER: Right, it is asked by the storyteller not by Bob.

Y: I play both.

X: Thus you have to prove both. You will have to prove  that you are "Y" and that "Y" is the one proving it, not some other storyteller.

Y: That sounds very complicated. maybe we need a narrator character in the dialogue.

CHARACTER: Mickey you should play the narrator since we don't want to add more characters.

God: I can fit for the part. I'll do it!



 

X: Don't take it personally, but I ruther see a mathematician in this role, not a God

Y: it's the director's decision who to cast for any of the roles.

MICKEY: But who should we cast as a director?

MINNIE: It calls for a consensus to decide on that.

X: Logically speaking, I have to agree with that.

Y: Me Too. It is true.

God: Since we arrived at a consensus on the assumption that it is logical to use the consensus in order to decide on the director role., then it would make sense to extend the consensus in order to decide on who should play the narrator.

X: Logically speaking, I have to agree with that too.

Y: Me Too. It is a true statement, logically speaking I mean.

God: Thus it is also make sense to extend the consensus to agree on any thing.

MICKEY: Dose it make sense to give up logic altogether?

X: Then it is not going to make sense.

Y: We need logic to be able to make sense of deciding on the consensus rather then on the truth.

God: And this brings logic to a divine order.

X: Which is exactly what me and Y represent in this conversation.

Y: While you represent the consensus as a divinity.

God: That makes sense.

MICKEY: Great! now it also makes sense that God is indeed the narrator in our identity quest, and we can go back to that dialogue next.

God: How can Y prove to X that it is Y if X doesn't know Y?

Y: Easy, I ask you to do that. 

X: Based on all the assumptions that we made, then yes, it is the way to go about proving it.

MICKEY: What assumptions?

X: The consensus which implies God in our dialogue as the narrator.

MICKEY: Fine, you are correct to bringing the narrator into the solution as a third party, but that is not the real problem I try to solve.

X: Thus I guess we have to rephrase it as a P2P question, and deal with these complications.

Y: I agree, we need to get back to the dialogue in which I presented the question.

God: That makes sense.

[nili]

X: The question in question is, "how can Bob prove to Alice that he is Bob if Alice does't know Bob?".

MICKEY: No more characters pleas.....

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

MICKEY: This doesn't sound right, the question is not part of a dialogue it is asked by a third party.  

CHARACTER: Right, it is asked by the storyteller not by Bob.

Y: I play both.

X: Thus you have to prove both. You will have to prove  that you are "Y" and that "Y" is the one proving it, not some other storyteller.

Y: That sounds very complicated. maybe we need a narrator character in the dialogue.

CHARACTER: Mickey you should play that since we don't want to add more characters.

God: I can fit for the part. I'll do it!



 

God: Here we are, lets play it again from the top but without me this time.

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

God: Perfect! But now to cover all bases, how about you also parse it so X have to prove to you that it is X.

Y: "How can X prove to me that he is X if I don't know him?"

God: OK, good, lets solve it now.

[nili]

God: Here we are, lets play it again from the top but without me this time.

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

God: Perfect! But now to cover all bases, how about you also parse it so X have to prove to you that it is X.

Y: "How can X prove to me that he is X if I don't know him?"

God: OK, good, lets solve it now.

CHARACTER: First we assume that Y recognize itself as Y.

Y: True.

X: Then we assume that X doesn't know Y if he doesn't recognize the speaker.since the speaker is indeed Y. .

Y: Easy, under these two assumptions we just proved it .

[nili]

God: Here we are, lets play it again from the top but without me this time.

X: No problem. lets just say that I am Alice and Y is Bob

Y: Fair enough, I'll be Bob then.

MICKEY: Great. That should simplify the problem in question.

X: Y, you should rephrase it again.

Y: "How can I prove to X that I am Y if X doesn't know me?"

God: Perfect! But now to cover all bases, how about you also parse it so X have to prove to you that it is X.

Y: "How can X prove to me that he is X if I don't know him?"

God: OK, good, lets solve it now.

CHARACTER: First we assume that Y recognize itself as Y.

Y: True.

X: Then we assume that X doesn't know Y if he doesn't recognize the speaker.since the speaker is indeed Y. .

Y: Easy, under these two assumptions we just proved it .

CHARACTER: Lets then assume that Y recognize itself as Z.

MICKEY: We don't have anyone to play Z, and will confuse things to assume someone else as Z.

Y: Mickey how about you play Z's role but as yourself?

MICKEY: No problem I'll do that.

CHARACTER: Lets then assume that Y recognize itself as Mickey.

Y: I am still playing  Bob, right?

X: Yes, you as Bob, myself as Alice and Mickey as Mickey.

Y: I am not sure we would be able to keep track of it but lets try.

CHARACTER: Since the speaker is Y pretending to be Mickey, then we assume that X doesn't know Mickey or Y if he doesn't recognize the speaker

MICKEY: Are we still asking the same question?

Y: Sort of, "How can I prove to X that I am Mickey if X doesn't know me?"

MICKEY: You can't! As we showed before, you can prove that you are Y only based on the fact that you recognize yourself as Y

CHARACTER: This is great. Now can Mickey prove that he is Mickey and not Y?

X:Since both Mickey and Y recognize themselves as Mickey and since X doesn't know neither, any of them can prove that they are Mickey but not both.

Y: So it will be the first one to declare themselves as Mickey that will be Mickey.

X: Yes! The order would serve as a proof.

MICKEY: So Y can steal my identity.

Y: I can, but it also means that I seize to exist. Sort of kill myself to become you.

MICKEY: Wow that is a heavy price to pay for a stolen identity... You actualy have to kill yourself first...

 

[nili]

CHARACTER: Lets then assume that Y recognize itself as Z.

MICKEY: We don't have anyone to play Z, and will confuse things to assume someone else as Z.

Y: Mickey how about you play Z's role but as yourself?

MICKEY: No problem I'll do that.

CHARACTER: Lets then assume that Y recognize itself as Mickey.

Y: I am still playing  Bob, right?

X: Yes, you as Bob, myself as Alice and Mickey as Mickey.

Y: I am not sure we would be able to keep track of it but lets try.

CHARACTER: Since the speaker is Y pretending to be Mickey, then we assume that X doesn't know Mickey or Y if he doesn't recognize the speaker

MICKEY: Are we still asking the same question?

Y: Sort of, "How can I prove to X that I am Mickey if X doesn't know me?"

MICKEY: You can't! As we showed before, you can prove that you are Y only based on the fact that you recognize yourself as Y

CHARACTER: This is great. Now can Mickey prove that he is Mickey and not Y?

X:Since both Mickey and Y recognize themselves as Mickey and since X doesn't know neither, any of them can prove that they are Mickey but not both.

Y: So it will be the first one to declare themselves as Mickey that will be Mickey.

X: Yes! The order would serve as a proof.

MICKEY: So Y can steal my identity.

Y: I can, but it also means that I seize to exist. Sort of kill myself to become you.

MICKEY: Wow that is a heavy price to pay for a stolen identity... You actualy have to kill yourself first...

 

MICKEY: Listen, I really like this assumption game we played.

Y: Its not a game its Math.

MICKEY: Wow, math? Did we just do Math.

Y: We created a proof. It is what makes mathematics so powerful.

MICKEY: Just to be clear, do we have to use an assumption in order to prove something?

X: It is a bit more complicated than that.

MICKEY: I want to learn it!!! I think that it will be the answer to my quest.

Y: What is you quest?

MICKEY: To prove to myself who I am.

Y: Not sure math can do that for you.

MICKEY: I am sure it can do it for you and I am fine we start with you and X.

CHARACTER: Well, if can work for X and Y , it should work for any character.

X: I would consider that as our basic axiom, though we should define a "character" as any number of capital letters ending with a colon.

MICKEY: Are axiom mathematical?

Y: More logical than mathematical, but they act as a base for any proof

MICKEY: So they too are assumptions.... And it is great since it means that we can prove anything based on assumptions which is exactly what I need.

MINNIE:.... I can't wait to see where this will take us.

[nili]

MICKEY: Listen, I really like this assumption game we played.

Y: Its not a game its Math.

MICKEY: Wow, math? Did we just do Math.

Y: We created a proof. It is what makes mathematics so powerful.

MICKEY: Just to be clear, do we have to use an assumption in order to prove something?

X: It is a bit more complicated than that.

MICKEY: I want to learn it!!! I think that it will be the answer to my quest.

Y: What is you quest?

MICKEY: To prove to myself who I am.

Y: Not sure math can do that for you.

MICKEY: I am sure it can do it for you and I am fine we start with you and X.

CHARACTER: Well, if can work for X and Y , it should work for any character.

X: I would consider that as our basic axiom, though we should define a "character" as any number of capital letters ending with a colon.

MICKEY: Are axiom mathematical?

Y: More logical than mathematical, but they act as a base for any proof

MICKEY: So they too are assumptions.... And it is great since it means that we can prove anything based on assumptions which is exactly what I need.

MINNIE:.... I can't wait to see where this will take us.

MICKEY: I understand that anything true is a mathematical statement thus not-true should not be a mathematical statement.

Y: This is incorrect. "not-true" is false thus is also a mathematical statement.

MICKEY: Obviously that can not be true!

Y: How so?

MICKEY: It is a contradiction.

X: If so you can prove it as a contradiction then.

MINNIE: I am sure that you can, but not so sure Mickey can.

MICKEY: If false is the opposite of true and anything true is a mathematical statement, then false must be the opposite of a mathematical statement which is a non-mathematical statement.

Y: This for sure is incorrect. Maybe we can work with the law of excluded middle to fix it.

MICKEY: Which is???!

Y: The law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.

MICKEY: I dont see how it helps. We said that every true statement is a mathematical statement so if a false statement is a mathematical statement then according to this rule the true statement can't be a mathematical statement.  

X: I guess it helped since you just used that rule to prove that your proposition was true.

MICKEY: What proposition?

Y: That a false statement can not be a mathematical statement.

MICKEY: I made that statement? .

MINNIE: Made and proved... Wow Mickey I am so impressed.

[nili]

MICKEY: I understand that anything true is a mathematical statement thus not-true should not be a mathematical statement.

Y: This is incorrect. "not-true" is false thus is also a mathematical statement.

MICKEY: Obviously that can not be true!

Y: How so?

MICKEY: It is a contradiction.

X: If so you can prove it as a contradiction then.

MINNIE: I am sure that you can, but not so sure Mickey can.

MICKEY: If false is the opposite of true and anything true is a mathematical statement, then false must be the opposite of a mathematical statement which is a non-mathematical statement.

Y: This for sure is incorrect. Maybe we can work with the law of excluded middle to fix it.

MICKEY: Which is???!

Y: The law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true.

MICKEY: I dont see how it helps. We said that every true statement is a mathematical statement so if a false statement is a mathematical statement then according to this rule the true statement can't be a mathematical statement.  

X: I guess it helped since you just used that rule to prove that your proposition was true.

MICKEY: What proposition?

Y: That a false statement can not be a mathematical statement.

MICKEY: I made that statement? .

MINNIE: Made and proved... Wow Mickey I am so impressed.

MICKEY: Alright, I'm feeling it! Let's keep rolling.

Y: I'm not sure that we are past that first proposition's proof but go ahead.

MICKEY: This statement is true.

Y: What is the proposition then?

MICKEY: That my statement is true

MINNIE: So we are proving that Mickey's statement that his statement is true, is true

CHARACTER: I guess since Mickey said that and not the narrator then it is the proposition.

MICKEY: So our true and mathematical statement is that I am the one who makes that proposition.!

Y: yes, I guess we must agree with that as being the truth

MICKEY: Great. So that is our proof then  

X: Say again?!!

MICKEY: If it is true that I am saying this statement, then this statement that I am saying is indeed true.

Y: I am not sure... let's try the negation and if it comes out as a contradiction then we say that we proved it.

MICKEY: This statement is false.

MINNIE: So we are proving that Mickey's statement that his statement is false, is true.

MICKEY: And our true and mathematical statement is that I am the one who makes that proposition.!

Y: Yes, I guess we must agree with that as being the truth

MICKEY: Great. So that is our proof then.  

MINNIE: Maybe I am not all that mathematically sharp but I don't see any contradiction here.

X: I guess that Mickey can''t say both that this statement is false and true.

MICKEY: I didn't do that! I just proved that its a true proposition whether I say that this statement is true or false. 

[nili]

MICKEY: Alright, I'm feeling it! Let's keep rolling.

Y: I'm not sure that we are past that first proposition's proof but go ahead.

MICKEY: This statement is true.

Y: What is the proposition then?

MICKEY: That my statement is true

MINNIE: So we are proving that Mickey's statement that his statement is true, is true

CHARACTER: I guess since Mickey said that and not the narrator then it is the proposition.

MICKEY: So our true and mathematical statement is that I am the one who makes that proposition.!

Y: yes, I guess we must agree with that as being the truth

MICKEY: Great. So that is our proof then  

X: Say again?!!

MICKEY: If it is true that I am saying this statement, then this statement that I am saying is indeed true.

Y: I am not sure... let's try the negation and if it comes out as a contradiction then we say that we proved it.

MICKEY: This statement is false.

MINNIE: So we are proving that Mickey's statement that his statement is false, is true.

MICKEY: And our true and mathematical statement is that I am the one who makes that proposition.!

Y: Yes, I guess we must agree with that as being the truth

MICKEY: Great. So that is our proof then.  

MINNIE: Maybe I am not all that mathematically sharp but I don't see any contradiction here.

X: I guess that Mickey can''t say both that this statement is false and true.

MICKEY: I didn't do that! I just proved that its a true proposition whether I say that this statement is true or false.

Y: Wow, wow... did we just proved that whatever Mickey say, is true?

MICKEY: No, we proved that I cant lie .

Y: Isn't that the same?

MICKEY: Not the same since I can say a false statement but its true that I said it.

MINNIE: You sort of suggesting that "not-saying" is lying.

MICKEY: Not suggesting, proving!!

Y: Can you repeat the proof for us?

MICKEY: you agree that it is true that I say something when I say something?

X: True, and is a mathematical truth.

MICKEY: So the fact that I made a statement whether that statement is true or false , is true. Right?

Y: True.

MICKEY: and you agree that not making a statement is the negation of making a statement?

X: Yes , that is true too.

MICKEY: So if making a statement is true and not making a statement is the negation of making a statement then it is the negation of true which means false

MINNIE: That indeed makes a lot of sense but I am not sure that it is acceptable.

MICKEY: Probably not, but only because we assume that the narrator is saying "this statement is true" and we all agree that the narrator always say the truth. But in fact that is the case for any one who makes any claim, not only the narrator.!

Y: If this is right then making a claim/proposition is getting the value "true" and not making a claim/proposition is getting the value false which means that not making a claim/proposition is lying

MICKEY: I could not believe it too but we just proved it.

MINNIE: So lying is not "not-telling-the-truth", but ruther "not-telling".

MICKEY: Only in a dialogue. Otherwise as a narrator, we assume that you say everything.

X: Thus the truth value of a program is not the same as the truth value reached by the machines that runs the program.

SATOSHI: Bingo!!!!  

[nili]

Y: Wow, wow... did we just proved that whatever Mickey say, is true?

MICKEY: No, we proved that I cant lie .

Y: Isn't that the same?

MICKEY: Not the same since I can say a false statement but its true that I said it.

MINNIE: You sort of suggesting that "not-saying" is lying.

MICKEY: Not suggesting, proving!!

Y: Can you repeat the proof for us?

MICKEY: you agree that it is true that I say something when I say something?

X: True, and is a mathematical truth.

MICKEY: So the fact that I made a statement whether that statement is true or false , is true. Right?

Y: True.

MICKEY: and you agree that not making a statement is the negation of making a statement?

X: Yes , that is true too.

MICKEY: So if making a statement is true and not making a statement is the negation of making a statement then it is the negation of true which means false

MINNIE: That indeed makes a lot of sense but I am not sure that it is acceptable.

MICKEY: Probably not, but only because we assume that the narrator is saying "this statement is true" and we all agree that the narrator always say the truth. But in fact that is the case for any one who makes any claim, not only the narrator.!

Y: If this is right then making a claim/proposition is getting the value "true" and not making a claim/proposition is getting the value false which means that not making a claim/proposition is lying

MICKEY: I could not believe it too but we just proved it.

MINNIE: So lying is not "not-telling-the-truth", but ruther "not-telling".

MICKEY: Only in a dialogue. Otherwise as a narrator, we assume that you say everything.

X: Thus the truth value of a program is not the same as the truth value reached by the machines that runs the program.

SATOSHI: Bingo!!!!  

Y: What the hell was that?!!

MINNIE: Mickey? is that you?

X: He is just playing some dirty game with us.

MINNIE: No! You two were not around when we had that conversation. It's real.

Y: I could use an explanation.

MINNIE: It is very long but you could check the history it's all there.

X: Thus is in the current state and we should be able to figure it out.

MICKEY: I can't figure it out, so I would be very happy if any of you would.

MINNIE: Mickey it's you again... do you realize what happened in the end of the last dialogue? 

MICKEY: I can read it and see it but I don't remember it.

MINNIE: ... Not good.... really not good! I am afraid that it is a sign of split personality.

MICKEY: No!!! that would be a disaster... Are you sure that it's the correct diagnosis?

CHARACTER: I suggest that we take a step back and not run to conclusions... We are in a new territory here and we must move very slowly.

X: How about we go back to the last dialogue and play it again?

Y: We might even need to roll back a few more dialogues and make sure we did not made any mistake.

MICKEY: Yes!!!  Something must be broken in the logic that triggered the split personality reaction.

MINNIE: Maybe that paradox we haven't noticed.

MICKEY: Lets go back there then.

[Saint-loup]

Disney Coin

The coins are an artistic representation of the company's future coins, however they are real tradable crypto-coins

[IDISNEY] A Mickey Token-Coin*

* The Micky Token-coin model is my intellectual property

The Disney Coin is the second in a series of coins which are made
to present the future of crypto-currencies and the future of a true free market, which breaks the state's monopoly on currency.

The coins  are real coins which can be traded P2P*
on the counterwallet exchange platform

open wallet here to buy coins https://counterwallet.io/

*However, these coins are not backed by the Disney company. It is the first real traded Disney coins which are made as a
representation  using the artistic freedom, an artist like myself has, to paint a very clear vision of the reality I wish to represent.

I thought the Disney coin was DRGN?   This coin is the former Disney coin or a fake one?
If it's legit, is there a swap available with DRGN?

[nili]

Disney Coin

The coins are an artistic representation of the company's future coins, however they are real tradable crypto-coins

[IDISNEY] A Mickey Token-Coin*

* The Micky Token-coin model is my intellectual property

The Disney Coin is the second in a series of coins which are made
to present the future of crypto-currencies and the future of a true free market, which breaks the state's monopoly on currency.

The coins  are real coins which can be traded P2P*
on the counterwallet exchange platform

open wallet here to buy coins https://counterwallet.io/

*However, these coins are not backed by the Disney company. It is the first real traded Disney coins which are made as a
representation  using the artistic freedom, an artist like myself has, to paint a very clear vision of the reality I wish to represent.

I thought the Disney coin was DRGN?   This coin is the former Disney coin or a fake one?
If it's legit, is there a swap available with DRGN?

MINNIE: I didn't expect to go that far back.

MICKEY: All the way back to genesis... maybe the contradiction originated there.

MINNIE: As declared, " These coins are not backed by the Disney company", thus have no relation to DRGN

Y: However, in terms of being the original Disney coins, they are, since are the first.

SATOSHI: Bingo!!  "first" = "original" = "euthenics" = "the real one". So to answer your question Saint-loup, IDISNEY is the real Disney coin since it is the first one to be named as a Disney coin. DRGN came second thus is the fake one. The Disney company may try to dispute in the court of law that DRGN is the "legit" coin and if they would and will win the case then DRGN is going to be the real and legitimate Disney coin as declared by the consensus of us as citizens . (This consensus over ride all other consensus based platforms, since it have the means to force it). Yet as I said the Disney company will have to file a suit and win the case for DRGN to be granted the title of the legitimate and original Disney coin, but that would result in bringing the value of this coin up. Now let me also tel you that if Disney will ever file such a suit not only that the value of IDSNEY will go up, Disney will fail to prove that DRGN is the rightful coin to earn the title of original and first thus "legit" Disney coin. So no, you can not swap between IDISNEY and DRGN. You may be able to exchange between then one day or buy some, but for now we are not selling. Our coin is the one that holds the value of the first and the original Disney coin ...even more so as being art. thus we hodle for now.
Thanks for asking