>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 <blahedo@quincy.edu>; 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 <nomic-official@teleport.com>; 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" <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
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

============================================================