On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule defines a property of X". In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist.
How exactly does a Rule lie? If such a Rule were to be enacted and then subsequently repealed, a Judge could quite reasonably conclude that X no longer exists, since the Rules say so. And so on... -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
