From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 19:51:08 PST
Michael Slone wrote: > -----begin rule----- > This rule is exempt from the requirements of 178:4, pending patent > litigation from beyond the grave. > > A cow hat is a method for determining whether certain restrictions are > in effect. The cow hat is worn by a rule maker with respect to a rule > just when that rule obeys its own restriction. For instance, 178:2 > indicates that rules submitted after it, shall not obey their own > restriction. Because 178:2 restricts only rules submitted after it, > it vacuously obeys its own restriction; therefore, Rich Holmes wears > the cow hat with respect to 178:2. The next rule, 178:3, attempts to > extend the restriction of 178:3; it requires future rule makers --- > that is, those besides Johnathan Van Matre, Rich Holmes, and Alan > Riddell --- not to wear the cow hat, not just with respect to the > rules they write, but with respect to any rules. > > It might appear that Alan Riddell wears the cow hat with respect to > 178:3 --- after all, the first sentence seems to indicate so, and Alan > Riddell, who is not a future rule maker, could not possibly be a > future rule maker who does not wear the cow hat. But 178:3 is valid, > which implies that Alan Riddell does not wear the cow hat with respect > to 178:3, a contradiction. According to Cowine, we may reject even > seemingly sensible hypotheses instead of patently absurd ones in the > face of contradiction and obtain a consistent system, but we are then > forced to reinterpret sufficiently many terms of our language, though > perhaps not in the same rule, in order to do so. Hence we may > conclude that wearing the cow hat with respect to a rule, while having > the definition given in the second sentence of this rule, is such that > it is never correct to say of a rule maker that e does or that e does > not wear the cow hat with respect to any particular rule. > > Buzz. Moo. Buzz. > ------end rule------ Judgement: INVALID. Cowine may think it permissible to clam that Alan Riddell both did and did not wear the cowhat, and that this is the way to escape from the contradiction. But the possibility that THIS rule is INVALID was apparently not considered by the learned authority, which the Judge thinks is even more reasonable. Style: Densely inconsistant -1. The Wizard -- Rule Date: 2002-02-28 03:51:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST