postmortem arguments: i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it
could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively
possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having
multiple interpretations, all subjectively possible (that is, not
actually known to be wrong)", which would mean my identity is
ambiguous. the second meaning of "ambiguous" is essentially the same
as "unknown".
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information
> unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. After all, the
> intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of
> the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the
> recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. Any distinction
> between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on
> AGAINT.
g. is judging that the second meaning of "ambiguous" is the relevant one.
(now, what would happen if i said, "every first-class player calls a
cfj on ..."? that would be silly.)
mister snuggles
