Ed Murphy wrote: >I'm not sure that this actually does what you suggest.
What's the flaw in it? > Defining a change as secured is equivalent to making it IMPOSSIBLE > except as allowed by an instrument etc. That seems pretty much equivalent to mine. The biggest difference that I see is that I relied on the concepts of definition and meaning being already known, whereas you're reimplementing the concept of definition. >And why go to all the trouble? It seems less trouble to me. My way makes the rules work more like the way they appear to, whereas yours has action at a distance. > Compare "A poorly qualified judge SHALL >NOT be assigned". Mm, disqualification and poor qualification should probably be secured at power=1.5. -zefram
