50001


_No Game No Life_ [pledge 4](http://no-game-no-
life.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Pledges):

> As long as it doesn't violate pledge 3, anything may be bet, and any game
> may be played.

  1. What happens when we [delete the hypothesis (aka assumption)](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/ask-yourself-dumb-questions-%E2%80%93-and-answer-them/) 'As long as it doesn't violate pledge 3' ?

Of course, if we delete the hypothesis, then we might as well delete the 4th
pledge altogether. Thus, pledge 4 may be restated:

> Anything may be bet, and any game may be played
> [unles](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/30642/if-not-vs-unless)s
> i[t](https://writingcommons.org/open-text/style/grammar/1237-identifying-
> and-addressing-unclear-pronouns-antecedents) violates pledge three.

I guess my question may be rephrased to ask for (counter)examples of bets or
games that would violate pledge 3.

  2. I actually feel there's some

    * [self-referentia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self-referential_paradoxes)l e[rror](https://www.amttraining.com/knowledgebank/excel/presenting-different-scenarios-with-self-referencing-ifs/),
    * way that pledge 4 is actually redundant or
    * [vacuous truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth).

This might be resolved by question 1, but if not, then what's going on?

Pledge 4 actually seems to point out that the 'game' and that which players
bet in pledges 2 and 3 are kinda not quite defined at least in terms of the
scope. I mean, what's the scope of the games or that which players bet? It
seems pledge 4 is precisely defining the scope, but pledge 4 refers to pledge
3. My understanding is:

> Pledge 2: All conflict in this world will be resolved through games, where
> games are defined in scope in pledge 4.
>
> Pledge 3: In games, each player will bet something that they agree is of
> equal value, where games and that which players bet are defined in scope in
> pledge 4.
>
> Pledge 4: The scope of games and that which players bet is that which does
> not violate pledge 3.

What am I misunderstanding?


CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-06T20:51:02.040
49999
2021-08-18T09:14:23.967
2018-12-06T21:12:21.520
63
4484
question
no-game-no-life
What is the role of the assumption 'As long as it doesn't violate pledge three' in pledge 4?


The pledges were created by Tet in order to stop the violent wars in Disboard,
while also providing a formal way for the races to compete with each other.

The pledges in question as stated in the [wiki](http://no-game-no-
life.wikia.com/wiki/Ten_Pledges) are:

> **Third Pledge:** In games, each player will bet something that they agree
> is of equal value.
>
> **Fourth Pledge:** As long as it doesn't violate pledge three, anything may
> be bet, and any game may be played.

So the 4th pledge states that _anything can be wagered_ , while the 3rd one
makes certain that the wagered items are agreed to be of equal worth by both
parties involved.

The lack of the third pledge would lead to extremely unbalanced bets, where
the challenged party can wager something of very little value, or disagree to
the game entirely. This would make it hard for the challengers to gain
significant resources to overtake other races.

Considering that the pledges are aiming to stop violence, unbalanced bets
would lead to further disagreements and the races would turn violent instead
of playing a game. Hence, the third pledge is necessary to maintain fairness.

Now, the 4th pledge then mentions that as long as the items are considered to
be equal in value (i.e. does not violate Pledge 3), they may be anything.
Considering that the Ten Pledges are always taken in conjunction, it is indeed
_redundant_ to reiterate that Pledge 3 should not be violated. However, this
does not lead to any major errors as far as I can see. It is just a case of
repeating something that is already being ensured.


CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-07T03:58:18.153
50001
2018-12-07T03:58:18.153
2020-06-17T09:17:53.303
-1
27657
49999
answer


Let's suppose pledge 3 doesn't exist. Person A challenges person B to a game.
Person B decided the rules as they are the challenged party. Person B decides
that if he/she wins, person A must give him/her everything they have. If
person A wins, person B must give him/her their glove. Person A objects, as
they don't even want a glove. Person B states that they can't drop out as they
have already issued the challenge.

Suppose pledge 4 didn't exist; someone could say that they can't bet
something, because it's a part of who they are.

With the absence of pledge 3 it would be impossible to gain anything by
challenging someone. Pledge 4 makes psychological bets such as "becoming dog
for the day", betting your existence and betting your memories possible. I'm
not sure what you mean by "delete the hypothesis (aka assumption)", but I hope
I've answered your question.


CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-07T14:45:29.560
50009
2018-12-07T14:45:29.560
43253
49999
answer


i think i get it now. it's like those round bracket/parethentical remarks on
yugioh cards eg for [summon
limit](https://yugioh.fandom.com/wiki/Summon_Limit) 'Neither player can Summon
more than two times per turn. (Negated Summons count toward this limit.
Negated cards/effects that would Summon do not count.)' --> like if you know
the rules then you know that the round bracket remarks are unnecessary.
they're just there for new players or to clear up confusions in advance or for
emphasis.

still, i think there is some kind of self-referential
[error](https://www.amttraining.com/knowledgebank/excel/presenting-different-
scenarios-with-self-referencing-ifs/) in rules 2,3 and 4 but i think it's
easily fixable


CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-18T09:14:23.967
65440
2021-08-18T09:14:23.967
4484
49999
answer