On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge
> otherwise.
Your keyboard is a pineapple. Now we've come full circle.
Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind
em to an agreement? Or
root wrote:
> My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge
> otherwise.
Your keyboard is a pineapple. Now we've come full circle.
Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind
em to an agreement? Or to act on eir behalf? Otherwise you've
violated on
Eris wrote:
> How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have
> missed that bit.
Oop, my misconstruction, it looked like in your original quote you were
replying to this sentence:
> Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I said my deregistration
> paradox couldn't be reso
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement.
How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have
missed that bit.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>how does
>"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
>Partnership is not a person"?
It would if the PP's judgement of CFJ 1623 were appealed and r
Ian Kelly wrote:
>how does
>"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
>Partnership is not a person"?
It would if the PP's judgement of CFJ 1623 were appealed and reversed
by the appeal board.
-zefram
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote:
> Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
then we could also say
(~Q -> Q) -> Q,
where Q = ~P.
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve t
On 5/31/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is
equivalent to P.
((~P -> P) <-> P) -> ((~P -> P) -> P)
-root
On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is
equivalent to P.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
You people and your aberrant languages.
Zefram wrote:
> Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
then we could also say
(~Q -> Q) -> Q,
where Q = ~P.
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all.
Ian Kelly wrote:
>But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
-zefram
On 5/30/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P -> (~P -> P)
But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
Any proposition.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
root wrote:
> But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
not P.
On 5/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
> (~P -> P) -> P
P -> ~~P
(~~P -> ~P) -> ~P
P -> (~P -> P)
But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?
-root
Eris wrote:
> (~P -> P) -> P
P -> ~~P
(~~P -> ~P) -> ~P
On 5/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> And therein lies the problem with appealing the
> judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
> and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.
Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I
For example, what happens if Murphy's CFJ (not the PPs) is appealed?
If it's sustainted, it's sustained, the opponents will have had a
fair hearing. If the majority of justices agree it should be
overturned, it can be Reassigned, with strong arguments suggesting
overturning, and Appellate Orders
On 5/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> And therein lies the problem with appealing the
> judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
> and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.
Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I
root wrote:
> And therein lies the problem with appealing the
> judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
> and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.
For example, what happens if Murphy's CFJ (not the PPs) is appealed?
If it's sustainted, it's su
root wrote:
> And therein lies the problem with appealing the
> judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
> and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.
Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I said my deregistration
paradox couldn't be resolved
On 5/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I interpret the lack of appeal as indicating general acceptance of
the judge's interpretation.
I realize I'm just one person and not even a player. But for what
it's worth, I don't accept Judge Goethe's arguments on CFJ 1622,
allegedly called by
root wrote:
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zefram wrote:
> * of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
> * of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Brilliant!
You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
(self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be pla
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trial judge selection is at the discretion of the CotC, but
Justice selection is random. I have never knowingly cheated on
a random determination in this game (or for that matter, knowingly
cheated or lied in the fora, saving in a game of Mafia
Maud wrote:
> There was no reason to believe that the appeal would be handled
> fairly.
Trial judge selection is at the discretion of the CotC, but
Justice selection is random. I have never knowingly cheated on
a random determination in this game (or for that matter, knowingly
cheated or lied i
On 5/22/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
(self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be players
in the first place.
There was no reason to believe that the appeal would be handled
fairly.
--
C. Maud Image
Zefram wrote:
> * of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
> * of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Brilliant!
You know, I'm amazed that three folks didn't appeal the original
(self-interested) judgements that said partnerships could be players
in the first place.
-Goethe
26 matches
Mail list logo
