>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Sat Jul 22 16:08:52 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA11762 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 16:08:01 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id OAA20694 for nomic-official-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 14:07:17 -0700 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu (students.wisc.edu [144.92.104.66]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA20678 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 14:07:13 -0700 Received: by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id QAA22560; 8.6.9W/42; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 16:07:12 -0500 X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Sat, 22 Jul 95 16:04:41 CDT >From: "Charles E. Carroll" Message-Id: <57886.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu> To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 794 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO Judgement of CFJ 794 Xanadu receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement. ============================================================ CFJ 794 Caller: Michael Statement: Rules 754/0 and 591/2 should be interpreted such that the judgement Michael attempted to make as pro-Justiciar on appeal of CFJ 784 was a valid Judgement. Barred: Andre Requested Injunction: none Judge: Xanadu Judgement: FALSE (but see arguments of Judge and COTC's note) Injunction: none Effects reported by COTC (* indicates new to this report): *Xanadu receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement. ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by Michael Fri, 21 Jul 95 10:27:26 BST Assigned to Xanadu Fri, 21 Jul 1995 11:20:08 -0500 Judged FALSE by Xanadu Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:01:13 +1000 (EST) Judgement published {as of this message} ============================================================ Arguments of Judge (Xanadu): The point to be decided, as I see it, is whether or not a judgement of "if x then FALSE else TRUE" is either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE or UNKNOWN. First, I shall look at a judgement of "if (2 = 2) then FALSE else TRUE". Can Rule 754 be used in this case to say that this judgement is logically equivalent to FALSE? I believe that it can be so used, as it states "... the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation... [is] inconsequential...", and logically equivalent statements are clearly synonyms. Now, Michael's "Judgement" was: let x = the truth of: "no actions became required of KoJen by 1023 between the time of his announcment of the Tabulator vacancy and his numbering of Proposal 1607" in if x then FALSE else TRUE end Does a similar argument apply? In my opinion, Michael's message attempts to substitute the entire quoted section for his judgement. This is not the same as a judgement of: FALSE if x is TRUE, and TRUE otherwise, where x is the truth of "no actions became required of KoJen by 1023 between the time of his announcment of the Tabulator vacancy and his numbering of Proposal 1607" which, IMO, is legal (provided that the truth of the statement "no actions ... Proposal 1607" is well defined, which may not be the case). However, the legality of such a judgement is not entirely relevent to this CFJ. I believe that a judgement of "let ... end" is not equivalent to "either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE or UNKNOWN" (Rule 591/2) And hence my Judgement is: TRUE if Michael's "Judgement" on appeal of CFJ 784 was valid, and FALSE otherwise ========================== Note: If it be decided that the phrase I have inserted above as Xanadu's Judgement on this CFJ is not a valid judgement, then Xanadu hearby Judges this CFJ FALSE. ========================== Comments: If I have angered anyone by Xanadu Judging in this way, then all I have to say is, "Hey, this is Nomic! Don't take it so seriously." ============================================================ COTC's note: Rule 754 states in part: ...the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, [is] inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long ^^^^^^^ as there is no ambiguity in meaning. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is my interpretation that something like "if (2=2) then FALSE else TRUE" is a valid Judgement, as it is an *unambiguous* synonym for FALSE. I do not believe Xanadu's first attempted Judgement of "TRUE if Michael's "Judgement" on appeal of CFJ 784 was valid, and FALSE otherwise" is valid, because, although it is a synonym for TRUE or FALSE, it is not an *unambiguous* synonym for either. Xanadu then goes on to state: "If it be decided that the phrase I have inserted above as Xanadu's Judgement on this CFJ is not a valid judgement, then Xanadu hearby Judges this CFJ FALSE." E does not state how or by whom it must be decided that Xanadu's first Judgement is invalid for this Judgement to apply; thus any such decision is sufficient. As I already stated above, I have decided that Xanadu's first attempted Judgement is invalid. Thus, "If it be decided that the phrase I have inserted above as Xanadu's Judgement on this CFJ is not a valid judgement, then Xanadu hearby Judges this CFJ FALSE" is an unambiguous synonym for FALSE. ============================================================ End of CFJ 794 ============================================================