If the NYT mentions Manifold, will it [mention the market on whether the NYT will] [×N] mention Manifold?
Basic
25
45k
resolved Oct 8
100%99.8%
0
0.1%
1
0.0%
2
0.0%
3
0.0%
4
0.0%
ambiguous
0.0%
0.0%Other

Resolves to the largest N satisfied by statements in whatever publication triggers a YES resolution of @jack's market, or N/A if that market resolves NO:

E.g:

• If the NYT doesn't mention any of the meta markets on whether the NYT will mention Manifold, and doesn't mention the markets on whether the NYT will mention those markets, and so on, then N=0.

• If the NYT mentions @jack's market or another market with similar resolution criteria, or the general fact that Manifold contains markets on whether the NYT will mention Manifold, then N=1.

• If the NYT mentions that Manifold has markets on whether it will mention such markets, i.e. if it references @DanMan314's market:

/DanMan314/if-the-nyt-publishes-an-article-men

Or if the NYT otherwise articulates that Manifolders are betting on this possibility (e.g. that they are betting on Dan's market, or on the N=1 case of this market), then N=2.

• If it concocts some statement to the effect that Manifolders are betting on the N=2 case, then N=3, and so on.

• If the NYT leaves it ambiguous how many layers of meta this goes to, e.g. "and Manifold has markets on whether we will mention those markets, and so on and so forth", then N="ambiguous"

• If it successfully makes a statement that spells out Manifolders are betting on the value of N generally, and that it does actually go to infinity (e.g the above but "and so on, to arbitrarily high N", or "and so on, ad infinitum"), then N = ∞.

Clarification added Oct 6th PST: As with @DanMan314's market, "mention" will be interpreted broadly:

• A link to or screenshot of one of these markets, or a screenshot of any part of the Manifold site with one of these markets present in a card or portfolio or anything will count.

• A link to or screenshot of a comment thread or discord channel from which one can discern the existence of these markets will count.

• A link to Manifold (or elsewhere) which only happens to currently contain a link to or other reference to one of these markets (e.g. because it's trending, or in a specific users' portfolio) won't count.

• A link to Manifold (or elsewhere) where the appearance of one or more of these markets is more than incidental (such as a link to a dashboard someone made that is specific to these markets) such that one would reasonably expect them to still be present if the link were clicked e.g. a month from now will count.

I will not resolve inconsistently with either @jack or @DanMan314's markets, provided they resolve consistently with each other, and this requirement trumps all others if in conflict. I will not resolve this market until both of them have resolved.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ735
2Ṁ479
3Ṁ210
4Ṁ188
5Ṁ44
Sort by:
coboughtṀ1000 YES

Sir what is this rollercoaster

This arb is breaking my brain

@Joshua Isn’t the only true arb that 1-P(0) in this market has to be at least the probability in Dan’s market? Because if dan’s market resolved yes this market can’t resolve 0

Yeah I think profit in most outcomes but I'm not sure

@Joshua I messed up and I'm trying to flatten my position so I can go to sleep lmao

Relatable

@Joshua Well you’ve gotta take advantage of the arbs that the bots can’t :)

@co I thought you were an insider and sold my 0 yes shares way too low lol

@EliLifland Yeah I realised that once I started flattening my position that it probably wasn't terrible EV to just pretend that I wanted to get super long on it but I had already started by that point, please pity me

FWIW I think it's pretty likely that Dan's market resolves yes anyway, it's a pretty obvious addition and adds humor to the article that readers would enjoy so I'm happy to be kinda long

I was hoping someone would make this market!!!!! It’s glorious.

If the article directly links to or references this market, that means it resolves to infinity, right?

@DanMan314 Correct.

I just added Ṁ100 in subsidies so we can get closer to the truth on this absolutely critical subject.

@DanMan314 I see you and raise you Ṁ2k. Insider traders and riggers: go!

At first I thought you intended to solve the infinite regress with this market, but I see that you intend to create an infinite number of markets still

@jskf I intended to solve it, this market is infinite markets. Reference to the N=M case of this market will cause this market to resolve to N=M+1

@chrisjbillington I was referring to this 😛

@jskf ahahaha yes fair cop

Please point out if I have screwed up anything in the description, it was hard to write. If I have made mistakes, I will resolve to what I intended, which I think should be fairly clear: no mention of meta markets ⇒ 0, mention @jack's market or similar ⇒ N=1, mention @DanMan314's market or similar ⇒ N=2, etc.