Boo... On 5/15/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.)
