On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Warrigal wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Not so good. This means that if a power-1 rule says MAY X, and a power-2 >> rule says MAY NOT X, then the power-3 MMI would make the power-1 MAY >> take precedence over the power-2 MAY NOT. > > MMI provides definitions only. If the Oxford English Dictionary > defines "ucalegon" as "neighbor whose house is on fire", and I say "I > currently have forty ucalegons", it's not the Oxford English > Dictionary that's claiming forty of my neighbors' houses are currently > burning. > > In other words, "X means Y" is not the same as "if X, then Y". The > former puts Y at the same power level as the rule that uses X; the > latter puts it at the same power level as itself.
That's quite arguable. The way it reads, it's possible to interpret it as "MAY X means that according to the power-3 MMI, it's not against the Rules". The expansion you mention works as long as the expansion is restricted to "the rule in question", but when you extend the expantion to "the Rules", it means you are now telling it to overrule other rules, so the power of the overruling rule is relevant. For example, whether or not a Dependent Action works is defined by the Rules for dependent actions; you don't insert the whole mechanism into each time the term "w/o objection" is used (and give the parts of the mechanism that lower power). -Goethe
