On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: If the Chief Whip announced that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be legal
> to publicly agree.
The hypothetical agreement occurs after the initiation of the case, so
not a tortoise if judged UNDECIDABLE. Also, I believe IRRELEVANT is
appropriate per
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 09:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: If the Chief Whip announced that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be legal
> to publicly agree.
>
> Arguments: The Chief Whip card is possessed by the Lost and Found
> Department, a non-person. Is this sufficient to force a judgement
> of UNDECIDABL
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 09:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ: If the Chief Whip announced that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be legal
>> to publicly agree.
>>
>> Arguments: The Chief Whip card is possessed by the Lost and Found
>> Department, a non-person. Is this suffi
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ais523 wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 09:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> CFJ: If the Chief Whip announced that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be legal
> >> to publicly agree.
> >>
> >> Arguments: The Chief Whip card is possessed
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 09:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
CFJ: If the Chief Whip announced that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be legal
to publicly agree.
Argume
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hmm, that parsing doesn't quite work with how we usually read CFJs.
> If I ask "if A then B" then I am asking for a judgement on what B is in
> the case where A is true. If it is impossible in our current universe/
> ruleset for A to be true
6 matches
Mail list logo
