For example, this protoproposal would
resolve the bleach issue:
////
1. For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this proposal, let the following
terms have the following definitions:
“Execute X” means to insert into the proposal the value of X, where X
is a text variable with a value set in this proposal.
“L” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the
right of the double pipe marks is a comment. The following players win the
game: [names].”
“R” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the left
of the double pipe marks and to the right of the paragraph number is a
comment. The following players win the game: [names].”
“double pipe marks” is the name given to two back-to-back instances of
the symbol “|”.
2. Execute L || Execute R
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:32 AM D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One way to make it more airtight is to define variables for each string,
> and then have the proposal execute them.
>
> On further consideration, I think the whitespace/bleach solution has a
> flaw. The rule says that whitespace “generally” doesn’t matter. This
> situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply.
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might
>> defuse
>> it and then there's no fun lol
>>
>> I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of
>> "paradox" (and scam, quite likely).
>>
>> Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit
>> it.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities
>> > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to
>> > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish"
>> > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is
>> > > too ambiguous to work.
>> >
>> > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects
>> > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267
>> >
>> > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in
>> > July this year:
>> >
>> > > Clearly marked comments are considered
>> > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless
>> > > otherwise stated by the proposal.
>> >
>> > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach
>> > argument is a clever alternative).
>> >
>> > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at
>> > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments,
>> > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can
>> > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And
>> > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered
>> > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed.
>> >
>> > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could
>> > imagine at least four outcomes:
>> >
>> > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked",
>> > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough
>> > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in
>> > both halves that both halves are effective.
>> >
>> > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to
>> > ineffective nonsense.
>> >
>> > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed,
>> > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing.
>> >
>> > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in
>> > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535)
>> > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> --
> D. Margaux
>
--
D. Margaux
