From: Karl Low (kwil_at_gmx.net)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:18:44 PST
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:44:13 -0500, Richard S. Holmes <rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu> wrote: > 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? > > Let the Judge decide, and/or resolve it by Proposal, I suppose. It's > a fairly unlikely scenario anyway. Fairly unlikely? You just get here or something? :-) Consider the FRC members. I vote AGAINST. > >> Also, the first rule must (that much is clear) be inconsistent. But if >> the >> first rule is in itself inconsistent, does that not also mean that every >> other rule is inconsistent with it? > > Of course not. Example Rule 1: "All rules must be at least ten words > long." > -- Karl Low - Student Research Assistant CCIS Virtual Helpdesk - Athabasca University Direct e-mail: kwil_at_gmx.net -- Rule Date: 2003-01-23 17:19:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST