From: Anton Cox (A.G.Cox_at_city.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 06:14:07 PST
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Stephen Turner wrote:
> >
> > No future rule shall obey its own restriction.
> >
>
> I don't understand this. RO6 requires all rules to obey their own
> restrictions.
I disagree: it requires rules to be consistent. As you note...
> Of course, sometimes a restriction may happen not to apply to a certain rule
> ("all future rules", "all odd numbered rules" etc.).
There are various ways to regard this occurence. One is
> I would call that still obeying the restriction.
and another is
> [But even if you want to call that] not having a restriction to obey,
The rule suggests the latter interpretation should be adopted. If that
is the case then one has a rule containing a list of restrictions, and
a corresponding list of the types of rules to which they apply.
If you regard this latter list as part of the restriction then I think
one is inexorably drawn to the first interpretation above. So I would
say that a phrase like "All future rules must include the word
udder" contains a restriction ("include the word udder") and a separate
description of the rules to which is applies ("All future rules").
In the light of the above, I hope it becomes clear that I do not agree
that
> 178:2 then only requires rules not to restrict themselves, rather
> than to requiring them to disobey any restrictions they are placing
> on other rules.
My imaginary rule includes the word "udder", and thus obeys the
restriction "include the word udder", so would be INVALID. If my rule
has said "All future rules must not include the word udder" then it
would not obey the restriction "do not include the word udder" and so
would be VALID (all other things being equal).
> I hope that's clear!
Best Wishes,
Anton
--
Rule Date: 2002-02-28 14:14:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST