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