On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:30 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > On 10/14/2019 7:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally, > > > avoid > > > circular dependencies, even if only as a matter of idealism. I've attached > > > to this email an svg file that I didn't include in my original submission. > > > > But are the dependencies you've identified truly circular? Many rules have > > multiple independent clauses that could very well be separated into smaller > > rules. If the "circularity" is created by a link to two entirely separate > > clauses within a rule, that could easily be separated without any change of > > function, is it really a circular reference to be concerned about? > > Agree. Another way of thinking about it is, if all the rules were combined > into > one rule (disregarding the necessary rephrasing of various metarules like > R1030 > and R2240), there would in theory be no mechanical difference, yet all the > circular dependencies would disappear. The main reason this wouldn't work in > practice is that we sometimes have higher-powered rules depending on lower- > powered rules - so I argue it's those relationships we should be trying to > eliminate, not circular dependencies themselves.
Further philosophising: if all the rules _were_ combined into one rule, would there be any meaningful semantic difference from the current "ruleset"? Or would Agora cease to exist as we know it and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable? And would we know if this had already happened? -twg
