On 2013-12-29 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-
defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is
true.
Soapbox:
I like the intent behind this clause, but I don't like the way it's currently
worded. If you can conclude an absurdity given the assumption that a statement
is false, this *does* prove that the statement is true. Classical logic is the
way truth-bearing statements behave; you can't legislate it away.
The problem isn't interpreting the rules as axioms in the wrong logical system;
the problem is interpreting the rules as logical axioms at all. They're
regulations, which aren't truth-bearing, and aren't closed under logical
entailment.
I might say something like this: "The behavior of the game is specified by the
rules themselves, not by the logical consequences of the rules. In particular,
if the rules logically entail that an event does or does not take place, this
does not necessarily cause the event to take place or to fail to take place."
Hmm, in your first proposed sentence, the issue with that wording
is that all of the game is the result of the (common-sense) logical
consequences of the rules, not the rules themselves. The rules don't
specify that "G. is a player". They specify "If someone is a person,
and has registered, then [the logical consequence is that] they are a
player" and we track the instances of that line of reasoning. At least
that's my reading.
Not that I'm tied to the proposal's phrasing, that's just a copy-paste
of what's already there. The main thing I want to keep is the "direct,
forward reasoning" part.
-G.
Heh, take your time sorting this one out, guys. It's only been five
months, we wouldn't want to rush into anything :)
I'm seriously tempted to take you up on your challenge and assume key
offices... but no, that would be wrong... then again, would I really
make things worse than they already are???
-Dan
