Eris wrote:
On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule
defines a property of X". In either case, repealing the rule
does not cause X to cease to exist.
How e
On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule
defines a property of X". In either case, repealing the rule
does not cause X to cease to exist.
How exactly does a
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
What if it says "This Rule defines X. X is a Y."?
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule
d
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
What if it says "This Rule defines X. X is a Y."?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Taral wrote:
> Zefram is a Player.
>
>Repeal the Rule just created.
I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule
along the lines of
This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately
40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf sta
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X?
When X does not exist independently of the rules.
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood,
but so do some other rules.
If a rule says "X is a Y.", under what circumstances does it then define X?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's
Eris wrote:
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of U
On 1/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all
# its properties shall cease to exist.
So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have
> "Unanimity is less than or equal to 1" is false.
Tell that to Mrs. Slocum.
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collec
Zefram wrote:
>No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect
>to any real number. So "Unanimity is greater than 1" is false, and
>"Unanimity is not greater than 1" is also false.
Oops, thinko.
"Unanimity is not greater than 1" is true, being the contrary of
"Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your
>argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than
>any positive rational number.
No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect
to any real number. So "Unanimity is g
Zefram wrote:
> judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
> i.e. use its old definition.
I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of
action:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that enti
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
>i.e. use its old definition.
I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of
action:
# If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that
# they no longer define that entit
On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't
ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient.
We're not ignoring it. But the problem is that the repeal didn't leave
us with an alternate interpretation that
Zefram wrote:
If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't
ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient.
That's not what I advocated. First,
I'll note that we're not talking about the definition of Unanimity
per se. It is in fact defined in R95
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent,
>i.e. use its old definition.
Its old definition was not game custom, it was a Rule. The precedent
of using that definition also does not apply, because a highly relevant
aspect of the preceding situation has c
Zefram wrote:
Taral wrote:
>It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving
their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to
whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this
Taral wrote:
>It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving
their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to
whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this case,
"Unanimity"
> It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?
How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its
properties are unknown.
In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete
that object, the pointer now points to who knows what.
In o
On 1/11/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement:
> Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot
> meet or exceed any numerical adoption index.
>
> "Unanim
On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement:
Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot
meet or exceed any numerical adoption index.
"Unanimity" is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I t
On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement:
Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of "Unanimity" cannot
meet or exceed any numerical adoption index.
"Unanimity" is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I t
23 matches
Mail list logo
