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