From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 11:50:26 PDT
"Richard S. Holmes" wrote: > JUDGEMENT: This rule asserts that all future rules will be > inconsistent with this rule (herein referred to as the "inconsistency > assertion"). Suppose rule 185:n is consistent with all *other* > provisions of 185:5 (and all other rules and ROs). Then 185:n is > VALID if it is consistent with the inconsistency assertion. But then > according to the inconsistency assertion, 185:n is INVALID. On the > other hand, 185:n is INVALID if it is inconsistent with the > inconsistency assertion, i.e., if it is VALID. Hence this rule would > require the Judge to find 185:n simultaneously VALID and INVALID, > contrary to the ROs. Therefore 185:5 is INVALID. Really? It was my impression that a rule is found to be inconsistent if it is inconsistent to assert that both rules are VALID. If a rule says (as many, many rules have said before) that: "All VALID rules shall do X" It is never argued that this rule is inconsistent because if a second rule is declared INVALID by the Judge, then the INVALID rule would in fact be consistent with the rule (because the rule only restricts VALID rules, not INVALID rules). Isn't this just the same thing? If a rule is consistent with another rule if and only if it is INVALID, then the second rule is judged INVALID, and the problem is judged to be in the second rule and not the first. Again, take the rule: 000:1 "Rulers of the Fantasy Kingdom are never effgu." Judgement: INVALID. Suppose that another rule were to be posted that said: 000:2 "If this rule is VALID, then rulers of the Fantasy Kingdom are sometimes effgu." Suppose that this rule is VALID. Then it would be inconsistent with 000:1 and I would have to declare it INVALID. But then, because it is INVALID, it does not maintain that rulers of the Fantasy Kingdom are sometimes effgu. Therefore, because it has no other problems, it would be consistent and hence VALID. Therefore 000:1 is INVALID, because there are rules that could be posted after it that would put me into the situation of having to simultaneously declare a rule VALID and INVALID at the same time. This Judgement is wrong. It is the second rule that puts itself into the paradox, and the solution to the paradox is to declare the second rule INVALID. Suppose the first rule of a round is: "This rule is INVALID". Are you forced to declare it VALID if you declare it INVALID? > A second problem with this rule is its own self-inconsistency: It > asserts that future rules must be declared INVALID due to > inconsistency with 185:5, and then goes on to say consistency does not > matter. Isn't the meaning of that statement clear in the context? I was referring to consistency not mattering for a specific purpose (whenever anyone says that something does not matter, they always mean for some specific purpose, discernable from the context). If all future rules are inconsistent with mine, but the Judge can declare them VALID anyway if and only if he wants to, then isn't it true that, in a very real sense "consistency does not matter" for these rules, in the sense that it is not something to be concerned about since the ultimate fate of their rules does not depend on it? -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:50:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST