On Dec 1, 2007 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > >> 5339 D0 2 Murphy Andre's degree > > AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis' > > assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it effectively] > > Disagree. Suber's Rule 211 only addresses M-M and I-I > conflicts. Andre's thesis examines the analogue of Suber's > Rule 110 (an I rule saying that M-I is always won by I), and > hypothesizes a M rule saying that M-I is always won by M.
I wasn't talking about the precedence based on mutability; Rule 211 specifically solves all such possible paradoxes by making all such chains of claims of precedence moot by giving precedence explicitly to the rule with the lowest ordinal number in cases where rules claim precedence over one another. If a rule with a number higher than 110 conflicts with 110 and 110 says that it takes precedence, it does. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
