On 6/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Thus, it is clear to me that the phrase "by announcement" must be
>interpreted according to its Rule 478 definition, regardless of any
>qualification or decoration.
I think this is in error. Even if it is forbidden to locally redefine
"by announcement" (which I will accept is forbidden by rule 754), this
CFJ is about the phrase "by announcement to the Corporate Forum".
Applying the standard definition of "by announcement" leads to a
nonsensical interpretation, that an "announcement to the Corporate
Forum" is an oxymoron. There is a sensical interpretation available,
that "by announcement to the Corporate Forum" is a distinct term not
bound by the standard meaning of a subsequence of its words. The latter
interpretation is, I believe, to be preferred.
I was going to address this subject in my judgment but chose to leave
it out as not apropos to the particular statement of the CFJ.
"Announcement to the Corporate Forum" is not an oxymoron; I believe
that a message sent both to a public forum (or to all players) and to
the corporate forum would meet the requirement.
"by announcement to the Corporate Forum" cannot be construed as an
independent phrase because it builds its meaning upon the phrase "by
announcement". Consider by way of analogy the difference between the
phrase "white tie" and the compound "white-collar". "White tie" is
dependent upon the word "white" for its meaning, as the phrase is
simply "tie" modified by "white". However, "white-collar" is built
from but exists independently of the word "white".
Your logic would be correct for a qualified phrase such as "by
announcement in Basque", where the qualification does not conflict with
the standard meaning of the core phrase.
What makes "by announcement in Basque" any different from "by
announcement to the Corporate Forum"? Both are saddling the usual
definition with additional restriction.
One might also consider the
recent instance of "infinite number" and compare it against "positive
number". "infinite real number" is an oxymoron, so I'd argue that
"infinite number" implicitly makes our standard definition of "number"
inapplicable. "positive real number" is perfectly meaningful, though,
so that's clearly what "positive number" means in Agora.
Absolutely. Again, the word "positive" in this context adds
additional restriction to the usual meaning.
Also consider:
is R1023(a) a recursive definition?
No. A "real number" is not simply a number that is real; the
adjective "real" as used in mathematics is derived from the compound
and not the other way around.
-root
