yeah, but they not assuming your personality if some1 snooks some dead presidents from ur wallet. 6/18/02 4:45:02 PM, Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com> wrote: >None of this, whether the dollar was stolen or not, has any impact on >the trustworthiness of the original dollar, as it is a bearer note, >and a dollar stolen is a dollar earned in some quarters. > >Just like car manufacturers consider a car stolen to be a car sold, >unless it was stolen from the manufacturer. > >We trust the intrinsic appearance of the dollar bill. > >Or the pink slip for car ownership, but do not trust the car without >its pink slip. > >Now, if I give you a check, and you give my check, made out to you, >endorsed to someone else, the recipient, if she accepts it is relying >on the transitivity of trust, whether such reliance is reliably >transitive or not. Most people in the US will not accept such >checks, but in some countries, such checks circulate for a long time >and some are never cashed. > >The real underlying issue here is reliance, and as Ed has pointed >out, reliance depends on more than the bearer saying "Trust Me!" >which is a single channel of communication. In the case of a dollar, >it depends on the perceived ability to find a greater fool to accept >it at face value, >as in the act of buying or selling common stock shares. > >This is why "Trust Me!" is generally considered a joke and why most >people laugh at it, whether they understand the formal logic of the >humor or not. > >But it is clear that trust is not some simple property of objects! >It is much more complex and depends on subjective evaluations of its >value, gennerally incorporating many bits of information from >multiple channels. > >Cheers...\Stef > > >At 5:50 PM -0400 6/18/02, Stephen Kent wrote: >>At 11:03 AM -0500 6/18/02, Alex Audu wrote: >>>Ed, >>> >>>You made some interesting points which leads me to wonder if >>>we can define Trust in such a way that its parameters are verifiable, >>>then we can verify that it is transitive. In other words, if Jon gets >>>a dollar from Mike, and Jon can verify the parameters of the dollar, >>>then Jon doesn't care about the "trustworthyness" of Mike's source. >>>Or should he? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Alex. >> >>I didn't want to comment on this example, but your message forces me to do so. >> >>Jon verifies the dollar, which is a bearer credential, and not Mike, >>the person from whom he received the dollar. (The dollar could have >>been stolen by Mike!) This example says nothing about transitivity >>of trust. >> >>Steve > >