proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2152 to read
The following terms are defined for the discussion of situations
concerning attempts by some entity to perform some action.
These terms are spelled in all capitals. Where these words are
used in low
proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2152 to read
The following terms are defined for the discussion of the status
of events. These terms are spelled in all capitals. Where
these words are used in lowercase these definitions do not
necessarily app
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
> AI: 2
>
This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
comex wrote:
>This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action.
Both terms are perfectly well defined. "CAN" is used in several places
to make something possible where it would otherwise be impossible.
The sole use of "MAY" has a sensible meaning, of giving permission,
but appears to
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action.
>
> Both terms are perfectly well defined. "CAN" is used in several places
> to make something possible where it would otherwise be impossible.
> The sole use of "MAY" has a s
comex wrote:
>What if the ordinary language bit was a bit less clear and said:
Then the rule would be pretty unclear.
>Rule 1607 is not the only relevant rule. Consider, for example, rule 2161.
>CAN the player assign ID numbers?
R2161 doesn't explicitly address the capacity to assign ID numbe
On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >What if the ordinary language bit was a bit less clear and said:
>
> Then the rule would be pretty unclear.
>
> >Rule 1607 is not the only relevant rule. Consider, for example, rule 2161.
> >CAN the player assign ID numbers?
>
> R2161
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I?
* CAN : it is POSSIBLE for to .
* CANNOT : it is IMPOSSIBLE for to .
This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for
" CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases.
In particular, we might want to amend Rule 101 to
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for
" CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases.
Those semantics are the usual meaning of "only if", aren't they?
How else might "only if" be interpreted?
As "if not , then the rules do not specify whether
Ed Murphy wrote:
>This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for
>" CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases.
Those semantics are the usual meaning of "only if", aren't they?
How else might "only if" be interpreted?
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>As "if not , then the rules do not specify whether CAN or
>CANNOT ".
OK. Here's my proto-addition to "clarify MMI":
{{{
Enact a power=2 rule with title "Grammar for Logic" and text
The following terms are defined for the discussion of logical
relationships betwee
should learn to reply to list
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:27:22 +0100
From: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?
To: Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTE
12 matches
Mail list logo
