Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Reality Corrected

[Zarpint Jeremy Cook <mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, you know, we have two rules that claim to take Precedence over
all other rules, including rule 33, including the part that specifes what
happens in a precedence conflict. I suggest prescribing that rule 33 takes
precedence over everything, purging any current claims of precedence over it,
and platonically prohibiting any prop pursuing claims of precedence over it.

Hopefully I or someone else will get around to it.

Zarpint




On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 	Meanwhile, an unrelated thought had crossed my mind - how do you deal
> with two rules that claim precedence over each other? Obviously that's
> what Suber's rule 211 is for, but what if it's involved in the
> precedence dispute? For example, rule X contradicts rule X+1, they both
> claim to take precedence over each other, and rule X+1 claims
> precedence over rule 211. Then, by rule X, rule X should win, by X+1,
> X+1 should win; 211 claims that the one with the lowest ordinal number
> takes precedence (X), but X+1 claims precedence over 211 too. Thus,
> there's no real way to resolve this conflict, since the standard tools
> for doing so can't be used unless you already know the outcome.

-- 
Zarpint            "All thy toiling only breeds new dreams, new dreams;
Jeremy Cook         there is no truth saving in thine own heart."
mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx       --W.B. Yeats, The Song of the Happy Shepherd
grep -r kibo /     "Movements are the problem, not the answer to problems."
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss