Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think ais523 was right on the money in 2906.
> It basically reduces to "'This statement is UNDECIDABLE' is incorrect."
> (If it is TRUE that it is undecidable, then Rule 2367 makes it incorrect.
> But if it is incorre
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> > 3240: UNDECIDABLE
> >> >
> >> > I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
> >> > neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriat
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> > 3240: UNDECIDABLE
>> >
>> > I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
>> > neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
>> >
>> > CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a play
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > 3240: UNDECIDABLE
> >
> > I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
> > neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
> >
> > CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
> > consisted solely of
Rule 2367.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 3240: UNDECIDABLE
>
> I accept the caller's arguments. Ozymandias has not won the game, so
> neither TRUE nor FALSE is appropriate.
>
> CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
> cons
On 6 July 2012 15:14, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Mind you, nothing prevents Ozymandias (or anyone else) from CFJing on
> the same statement - though, if one instance has already been judged
> UNDECIDABLE, then further instances might be judged "IRRELEVANT, points
> out nothing new".
Wait, we got rid of t
ehird wrote:
On 6 July 2012 15:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
consisted solely of the text "I intend, without objection, to ratify
the statement of CFJ 3240.".
Oh, sneaky... Very nice.
Mind you, nothing prevents Ozymandias (or an
On 6 July 2012 15:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: It would be ILLEGAL for a player to publish a message whose body
> consisted solely of the text "I intend, without objection, to ratify
> the statement of CFJ 3240.".
Oh, sneaky... Very nice.
8 matches
Mail list logo