spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: General confusion

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Rob Speer,

> This also screws everything up. I suggest that any dimension whose value
> is undefined should work like this: if a rule tries to determine whether
> something is true about that dimension, it should come out false, no
> matter what. So, as an example:
> 
> Is my score higher than Wonko's? No.
> Is my score lower than Wonko's? No.
> Is my score equal to Wonko's? No.
> [[ Sure, they are both undefined, but don't go trying to consider
> numbers that don't exist equivalent. ]]
> Is my score anything at all? No.

I see no *buzz* reas. to make those claims. I would say,

Is my score high next to Rob's? It is not poss. to tell.
Is *buzz* my score low next to Rob's? *buzz* It is not poss. to tell.
 *crack.* Is my score like Rob's? It is not poss. *crack.* to tell.
Is my score *buzz* anything at all? It is not poss. to tell.

With your [[interpretation *buzz*]], we have a *crack.* p-dox -
Is my score 300? No.
Is my *crack.* score not 300? No.

With mine, it's *buzz* just an [[ambiguity]]. I'd say em. handl'g *buzz* is
in *crack.* ord.

-- 
Wonk. *crack.*