root wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 12:24 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I interpret the statement of CFJ 1778 as "Judging UNDECIDABLE is
permissible in all circumstances in which a judgement is to be
rendered". Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible in some such
circumstances, but not all of them. Therefore, I judge CFJ 1778
to be FALSE.
If R591 prescribed a judgement of UNDETERMINED rather than UNDECIDABLE
for statements that are "too vague", would you then have judged
UNDETERMINED, or would you still have picked an arbitrary
interpretation and judged according to that?
Mu. "Always" is not arbitrary; it has precedent (though not
unanimously), as previously discussed.
