Murphy wrote:
> One of Smullyan's lesser-known diversions involves sane and insane
> islanders, who believe only things that are true resp. false, and
> then knights and knaves say only things that they believe are true
> resp. false. Then there's the island's native language, where you
> know wh
Zefram wrote:
A knight SHALL NOT publish a statement unless e believes it
may be true, and SHOULD NOT do so unless e believes it is.
Too loose. How about the stricter:
A knight SHALL NOT publish a statement unless e believes it is
true.
As long as the paragraph about
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I asked (twice) what you had in mind by "reckless", but you didn't
>answer, until this.
Since you brought it up I've been meaning to draft an explanatory
paragraph, but not got round to it. I thought a dictionary would suffice
for the time being.
> A knight SHALL NOT publi
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
comex wrote:
but possibly end up just a useless pain.
How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate?
-zefram
Maybe a pain but a pain that has made us pause and think carefully
about certain aspects of how players make actions and announcemen
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
but possibly end up just a useless pain.
How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate?
It was perfectly fine in its original form, if you ask me.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
then the knave is considered to /feel/
the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither
the announcement nor the action.
Yuck. If you want to make such an exception, please do it without this
false distinction.
comex wrote:
>but possibly end up just a useless pain.
How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate?
-zefram
On 8/30/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... I would MUCH prefer a
> counter-literality filter...
On 8/30/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I would most prefer an overturning of CFJ 1738.
I just contradicted myself, didn't I?
comex wrote:
>I would MUCH prefer a
>counter-literality filter, of the kind that Zefram for some really odd
>reason thinks is impossible.
I don't think it's impossible, but it's difficult for it to exist
if not explicitly allowed by the rules. What I th
On 8/30/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would find such a filter to be incredibly annoying.
Personally I would most prefer an overturning of CFJ 1738. The knave
would then have to balance the explicit exemptions at the end of 2149
with the requirement to post something true in order
On 8/30/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >however, if the rules otherwise permit a knave to perform an
> >action by announcement, then the knave is considered to /feel/
> >the announcement to be true, and this rule pro
On 8/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>however, if the rules otherwise permit a knave to perform an
>action by announcement, then the knave is considered to /feel/
>the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither
>the announcement nor the acti
Ed Murphy wrote:
> then the knave is considered to /feel/
> the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither
> the announcement nor the action.
Yuck. If you want to make such an exception, please do it without this
false distinction.
If you want
13 matches
Mail list logo
