BobTHJ wrote:
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 10000 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 10000 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
That's what (e) is for. But even if we do make a mistake, the
alleged numbering has arguably accomplished its goal, despite
its invalidity: namely, allowing the proposal to be referred
to by number (or, in this case, alleged number). The situation
breaks down into two cases:
1) The Promotor invalidly assigns number 10000, someone remembers
the previous number 10000 and promptly points it out. Then
everyone knows that the future proposal isn't 10000 after all,
and the Promotor can perform a valid assignment.
2) The Promotor invalidly assigns number 10000, no one remembers
the previous number 10000. Then any references to "Proposal
10000" around that time constitute unambiguous references to
"the Proposal that the Promotor recently attempted to number
10000". (They couldn't reasonably be references to the old
Proposal 10000, because then we would be in case #1.)
