Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
On 1/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. Being "mutually exclusive offices" is either a qualifier
on offices or a whole (nonseparable) term in and of itself, and does
not create an implicit definition Speaker ~ Offices.
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
On 1/4/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. Being "mutually exclusive offices" is either a qualifier
> on offices or a whole (nonseparable) term in and of itself, and does
> not create an implicit definition Speaker ~ Offices.
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Yeah, to me the 'mutually exclusive offices' states that each is an office.
Thus making Speaker an office.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
Kerim Aydin wrote: Maud wrote: The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually exclusive offices. This sentence plainly designates the position of Speaker as an office, so by rule 1006, Speaker is an office. I disagree. Being "mutually exclusive offices" is either a qualifier on offices or a whole (nonseparable) term in and of itself, and does not create an implicit definition Speaker ~ Offices. If it is a qualifier on offices then it would also be possible to leave out the qualifier: The Speaker, CotC, and Promotor are offices...the extra words only give extra information about what type of offices they are. But if those words qualify "offices," it would be impossible for the list to be of "mutually exclusive offices," if they are not "offices." Cecilius -- Scott Rollins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Arnprior, ON, Canada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
Eris wrote:
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Rules that don't make sense are nothing new. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:03:31PM -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Then the clause is simply broken, as it tries to do the impossible of > placing an office-modifier on something that is not in fact an office. I think that for consistency we have to read ``X and Y are mutually exclusive Z'' as * X and Y are Z; but * X and Y are mutually exclusive. Compare this to the switch situation. For example, rule 478/15 began with the sentence: Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public. This designated null, Discussion, and Public as the states of the switch, while rule 2040 took care of ensuring mutual exclusivity. Ignoring the need for a way of changing states, we could have equivalently written the first sentence of rule 478 as Null, Discussion, and Public are mutually exlusive states of a forum. We wouldn't have to write Null, Discussion, and Public are states of a forum. Null, Discussion, and Public are mutually exclusive states of a forum because the first revision makes it clear that the three terms are being used to designate states. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) I predict some potentially pernicious Platonism when some poor proposal becomes plebic while some plucky player has positive voting power on an ordinary proposal but naught on another (power being purportedly appraised per player, per proposal). -- root, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
> Then the clause is simply broken, as it tries to do the impossible of > placing an office-modifier on something that is not in fact an office. Goethe, can you explain precisely why you believe the Speaker is not an office, other than game custom? In the absence of any hard rules stating that distinction, I think we should stick with R1450, which suggests strongly that the Speaker is an office. Sherlock __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
On 1/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
> That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually
> exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Rules that don't make sense are nothing new. :)
Arguments that don't make sense are also nothing new. :)
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
Kerim Aydin wrote: > Sherlock wrote: >> Goethe, can you explain precisely why you believe the Speaker is not an = >> office, other than game custom? In the absence of any hard rules >> stating t= >> hat distinction, I think we should stick with R1450, which suggests >> strongl= >> y that the Speaker is an office. > Oh yikes, I notice from the FLR history that R1450 should have been > changed in power from 1 to 2. If this is correct, that changes my > arguments, and I agree with Maud! Michael, can you confirm that > R1450 was in fact upmutated to power-2? My argument was predicated > on R1450 being the lowest power among the conflicting rules in > question. Yes, R1450 should be listed as having power-2 - it was up-mutated by your proposal 4868. Sorry for the confusion caused by my recording error. The proposal achieving this included the following: -- Amend Rule 1450 (Judicial Separation) by renaming it 'Separation of Powers', increasing its power to 2, and amending it to read: The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually exclusive offices. A Player holding one of these offices may not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule that governs offices. -- Michael.
