From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 06:25:45 PDT
Each rule carrying only the Wind descriptor must deal with a real or potential temporal anomaly, or violation of causality, within the rule set. This rule, for example, addresses the following excerpt from 208:3: > As required, this rule is uniquely identified on it's first line by a > label including descriptor and identity of it's poster. Since this rule is VALID, we know the above requirement must exist. Furthermore, since rule 208:1 is VALID (and this rule, we assume, will also be judged VALID), we know this requirement must not apply to all rules. And of course, none of the VALID rules to date actually imposes such a requirement. Therefore we have a causality crisis in which, in order to maintain consistency, some rule after 208:3 must impose the requirement cited in 208:3. And indeed, we find in this very rule the following: A rule is a Wind rule if and only if it has the "Wind" descriptor. Each non-Wind rule must be uniquely identified on its first line by a label including descriptor and identity of its poster. No Wind rule may carry such identification. The gratuitous apostrophes in the earlier citation of this rule can only be attributed to reverse temporal distortion. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY "We're waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger -- Rule Date: 2003-05-12 13:25:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST