Judgement 180:4 INVALID 0

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 00:15:56 PST


"Richard S. Holmes" wrote:

> Every egdujehtevolew [prime numbered rule] must be a
> Splitsplotsplinksplon[rule containing the word
> Splitsplotsplinksplonk]k.
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-03-28 20:53:29 GMT

INVALID.  This rule attempts to reinterpret a Spitsplotsplinksplonk as a
rule containing the word "splitsplinksplonk".  Rule 180:1 says: "Future
Rules may re-interpret fyaphic words so long as the re-interpretation is
consistent with all prior Valid Rules."  Therefore it must be the case
that, due to 180:2, "A Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have its
description [The bracketed one] after it."  Substitute in the
redefintion and it is now the case that any rule containing
Splitsplink... must not be followed by ITS description [the one in
brackets].  If it were just that a rule could not be preceded by A
description of it, there would be no problem.  But rule 180;2 just makes
no sense with this definition of Splitsplink...

0 - cute to have self-reference, but you should have thought about the
other rules with the word redefined and what the effects would be, and
this restriciton isn't very interesting.

The Judge

--
Rule Date: 2002-03-31 08:15:32 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST