From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 11:07:52 PDT
Richard Holmes wrote: >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. I interpret 208:1 as having all three descriptors. I interpret the excerpt of 208:3 as placing a requirement only on 208:3. According to 208:5, 208:1 is a Wind rule, and thus it may not carry a label as described. Which it doesn't, because the first line of 208:1 does not include the identity of its poster. In short, I interpret that everything in 208:5 is consistent and correct, though not necessarily in the way or for the reasons intended by the author. VALID, +2.0 Style. -- Rule Date: 2003-05-14 03:34:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST