[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Zarpint amends p1938

[Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri,  5 Nov 2004 13:27:16 -0600 (CST), wonko@xxxxxxxxxxx
<wonko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Auto-mailed on nweek 72, nday 6
> Sent at Fri Nov  5 19:27:15 2004 GMT
> 
> Zarpint has amended p1938.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Proposal 1938/1: Indistinguishability
> A Standard Proposal by Zarpint
> Last modified on nweek 72, nday 5
> 
> Replace r699 with:
> 
> {{__The Slightly Less Important Not-So Default Case__
> 
> Any action indistinguishable from a legal action by at least one Player is legal. This rule takes precedence over all other rules except rule 33.
> 
> An action is said to be indistinguishable from a legal action by a Player if that Player could have no conceivable way of telling, given all available information, whether that action is legal. [[So being mistaken doesn't count, but not having information available does.]]
> }}

Arguably, all actions are legal. We assume an iterative process for
determining whether an action is legal, despite the self-reference:
* Assume the action is legal
* At this point, as we have not examined it against any rules, we
cannot distinguish it from illegal.
* We examine its legality by r699 first
* r699 says it's legal, by point 2.
* Therefore, the action is legal, and the process terminates.
-- 
bd
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss