On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As the caller suggests, it is clear from R2193 and the first paragraph >> of R2192 that the Monster fits the intensional definition. I >> therefore assign a judgement of TRUE to CFJ 2172. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. > Arguments: > See CFJ 1746.
I forgot about that one. I think I approved of it at the time, but I don't now. From that case, my interpretation could be classified as 1+2b, which Murphy did not consider, but which can be viewed as a simple combination of 1b and 2b. 2b was the interpretation Murphy selected. 1b was rejected on the basis that the addition of a low-power rule claiming "X is a person." would cause R2150 to contradict itself; but that isn't true. A rule claiming "X is a person." with power less than two would simply be ignored by R2150. -root
