Mutually recursive trust escalation

Some time ago, Sam and I refined our model and came to the conclusion that mutually recursive trust escalation, a cognitively complex technique requiring at least two people and a convert external representation for maintaining the call stack, is best. Note that this fails if the affection receptor also has a convert (or otherwise) external representation with which to track the recursion. In such cases we make appeal to the standard techniques of talking shite followed by application of I’ll get my coat.

The situation is analogous, but better, when unknown receptors are chaperoned by friends—a significantly more probable means of successful binding. It is conjectured that such cases are in fact generalisations of the mutually recursive trust escalation conjecture, but this has yet to be supported by empirical evidence or analytical proof.

Law’s Law states that mutually recursive trust escalation fails if an attempt is made by a female to invoke it, if and only if her friends also intend to find a receptor with which to bind and the intersection of binding targets is non-empty. Proof outline: girls are unable to cooperate whilst on the pull. QED.



  1. Sam

    When’s did Law’s Postulate become Law’s Law?

    This generalisation could certainly merit field tests. Although this would certainly need to be a Bayesian theory as prior knowledge is available through the chaperone. There may be an optimal prior!

  2. Donald Stahl

    The combination of computerese and Britishisms is baffling, and the suggestion that somehow sex is involved is intriguing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s