On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> This judgement is not self-consistent. If R2211 requires a promotion be >> performed (for the purposes of R2160a), it cannot also be illegal to >> do the promotion by the same clauses R2211. > > I draw a distinction between the rules requiring something and an > obligation existing (your own arguments led me to this conclusion). If > that distinction is not drawn, the CFJ must be FALSE, and Billy > Pilgrim's was the only legal flip. Once I perform my promotions, the net > result will be the same.
??? An obligation arises from a requirement. Can't have one without the other. In fact I think they're wholly the same? "An obligation to do X" is the exact same as "a requirement to do X"? (The net result isn't the same if one version creates a criminal case :).) I think (respecting your "office" contention) that FALSE is in fact correct and everything following B.P's promotion would fail. Or if your contention that only doing "the whole procedure" is required, then even B.P.'s promotion failed because I didn't perform the whole procedure. -goethe
