From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 11:46:24 PDT
Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > JUDGEMENT: This rule asserts that all future rules will be > inconsistent with this rule (herein referred to as the "inconsistency > assertion"). Suppose rule 185:n is consistent with all *other* > provisions of 185:5 (and all other rules and ROs). Then 185:n is > VALID if it is consistent with the inconsistency assertion. But then > according to the inconsistency assertion, 185:n is INVALID. On the > other hand, 185:n is INVALID if it is inconsistent with the > inconsistency assertion, i.e., if it is VALID. Hence this rule would > require the Judge to find 185:n simultaneously VALID and INVALID, > contrary to the ROs. Therefore 185:5 is INVALID. I don't think this is any more problematic than "Future VALID rules must contain the word 'spoon'," or "This is the last VALID rule." Which is to say, I don't think it's problematic. It certainly hasn't been treated as such in the past. I guess it hinges on what you consider to be the test for consistency. The usual test only hinges on consistency of the set of VALID rules; INVALID rules normally count for nothing. What does your test do with "This rule is INVALID"? > A second problem with this rule is its own self-inconsistency: It > asserts that future rules must be declared INVALID due to > inconsistency with 185:5, and then goes on to say consistency does not > matter. That's right. It doesn't matter, because the outcome is always the same. For future rules to be VALID, they must be changed to VALID by proposal or by whim of the Judge. In that sense, consistency (with anything else) isn't enough for VALIDITY, because it will *always* fail on 185:5. Unless a rule can somehow get around it. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:46:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST