I agree but while it would be true that it would "exist in some form"; it
wouldn't exist as an "asset", and the rule refers to the existence of
assets themselves, not abstract items in general.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:46 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Arguments:
> > - CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing documents can't exist")
> > - R2166 states "An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule",
> however,
> > this is in itself a definition of what an asset is - it is an entity
> defined
> > as such by a rule. So R2166 is a backing document.
>
> Arguments: You're missing the second part - "existing solely because
> its backing document defines its existence". That's the reason assets
> can't have multiple backing documents: an asset can't exist 'solely
> because of' each of two different things. But in general,
> rule-defined assets would probably continue to exist (at least in some
> form) even if Rule 2166 were repealed and left "asset" undefined;
> thus, Rule 2166 doesn't satisfy the condition.
>
