On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > Arguments: Contradiction != paradox. We have R217 for this sort of > thing.
Huh. R217 allows judging in the best interests of the game to sort out "inconsistent" sets of rules, which is basically sorting out paradoxes among other things. Wins aside, it could be said that it's never in the best interests of the game to leave something in split gamestate/doubt, so that by R217, UNDECIDABLE is *never* appropriate? (Even if this was true once, our current weight of precedent is strongly against R217 in this sense, but it's quite likely that this his how this very old concept *should* be interpreted... ooh, this fits in with the subject of my draft thesis!). -G.
