Re: 201.A

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:01:58 PST


Andre Engels <engels_at_uni-koblenz.de> writes:

> I vote AGAINST this proposal, because I think it can lead to ill-defined
> situations. What do we do when Rule A+B, rule B+C and rule A+C are all
> consistent, but rule A+B+C is inconsistent?

On further thought, if I were the Judge, I'd probably rule C VALID on
the grounds that if you remove one of rules A, B, what's left is
consistent.  That's at least in the spirit of the requirement of
201.A.  

The proposal could be rewritten in those terms, and I'd support such a
rewrite, but I don't regard it as necessary.

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-01-23 17:02:08 GMT


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