On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 10:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > (R754/9 makes the "guidance" of low-power > > rules purposefully weak; the expressed legislative purpose was to > > prevent low-power definitions, especially implicit ones, from > > overruling common usage or strong contextual definitions of terms > > contained in high-power rules, to prevent just this sort of scam). > > Oh and btw, this scam makes me happy, in that this re-write of R754 > was specifically meant to block definitional ladder scams, and this > is a non-trivial version of such a scam (relying on deep implicit > definitions and contextual assumptions on both sides) so it's a > really nice and direct test (and the first important one?) however > it turns out. :) -G.
Yes, ladder loopholes are fun; and it's pretty rare anyone gets a chance to test them. Looks like I'll have to wait until I get another Power-1 dictatorship, though, which may be a while. I hope it'll happen some day, though. -- ais523
