Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: the Field

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 2, 2008 10:58 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/2/08, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I submit the following Consultation:
> >
> > {{ Does the fact that the Field is geometrically impossible mean that
> > it doesn't exist? }}
>
> Assuming you mean that squares can't be arranged into an actual torus,
> it all depends on your definition of "square". It's just the most
> common definition that doesn't work; there are probably other accepted
> definitions that do.
>
> Maybe.

I can point out any word in the ruleset and demand that we use some
hypothetical definition that doesn't exist anywhere in actual
practice, resulting in me winning.  That doesn't mean anyone else
should accept it.

Why should we assume that "square" is the word with another
definition?  Why not use an alternate definition of "torus" which
means the same as "rectangular plane" instead?
-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss