On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > For example, do we think Proposal 7564 is sufficient to plug the hole? > Because I'm not getting what it's supposed to do.
Well, since Machiavelli voted against it and OscarMeyr mass voted against, I think it's failing - perhaps I should have been more explicit and/or explained the proposal in a comment! Basically, it's supposed to ban modus tollens, reasoning based on the law of the excluded middle, etc, allowing only forward reasoning based on the statements in the rules. - But, you say, that's a lot of restriction for a short sentence! Well, I think that in lieu of complicated rules explicitly encouraging indirect logical reasoning (e.g. "A player CAN do either A or B"), banning it is only what you would do by default in any normal ruleset or legal system (this is part of why I think your scam failed, as I don't think we diverge sufficiently from that standard). We could get more expressive by allowing arbitrary deductions but simply generally banning irrelevant ones (with a notion of relevance that doesn't allow player-submitted statements to cross the gap), but in lieu of said complicated rules there isn't much to differentiate between the two systems. So it isn't really a large leap. - But the argument that Fool is a dictator is (almost) constructive, not dependent on proof by contradiction! In that it (almost) holds in intuitionistic logic, but that produces such weird results that it's hardly related to natural reasoning - at least for the purposes of deciding what is true or not. In English, I'd say that modus tollens is explained as follows: if we can say that "if A, B", and B is false, then it would be absurd to say that A is true, because then B would be true, so A is false. Since this is what is banned, I think my wording is enough to prevent modus tollens without forcing us to use any particular formalization of logic. On the other hand, we could also be even more explicit about how restrictive we want to be. - But (you, but probably not Fool, say), restricted logic is weird and can accept paradoxes! I dare you to find something easier to understand that functions correctly. It's significantly less weird than the type of paraconsistent logic I previously proposed. - But it could cause weird results in CFJs... Probably doesn't matter, but could restrict it to reasoning about the rules. -- "my fix proposals have a habit of failing" omd
