On Jul 29, 2013, at 11:02 PM, omd wrote: > 7564 3 0 O omd The Logic that Never Was
I somewhat reluctantly change my vote on this to FOR. It's not clear what "explicitly envisioned" means, but I think it's a decent way of doing things (and it more or less matches my rules-are-regulations-not-axioms argument I just said into ##nomic). I think it's simply a fact that an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement is false *does* constitute proof that it is true; my RARNA opinion is that if you prove that you CAN do something using the rules as axioms, that doesn't actually allow you to do it. —Machiavelli
