comex wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 6:32 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
To point out the potential problem more explicitly:
If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when
comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural
person as Clerk of the Courts until the statement of CFJ 1668 is
confirmed false, either by judgement or by explicit legislation.
Chicken-and-egg? ;)
Exactly. If Primo is purportedly installed as CotC, and CFJ 1668
is then purportedly judged false, then there wasn't really a CotC
and CFJ 1668 wasn't really assigned.
This situation has arisen before, usually in the context of "either X
or Y is judge; which one depends on the judgement". Usually they
agree to make the same decision, and that interpretation determines
which decision is the actual judgement. The only counterexample I can
remember is CFJ 1594, where the judges agreed to make opposing decisions
(each implying that the other decision was the actual judgement) so that
I could get a Win by Paradox out of it. (This was eventually
un-paradoxed by reversing Sherlock's decision on appeal; the reversal
implied that Sherlock was the actual judge, but that his interpretation
was not retained.)
