Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #163
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, June 25 1997       Volume 02 : Number 163

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Samizdat Publication

Heh, I laughed very very hard.  "unkempt and feral-looking"  definite
Silver Moon material, perhaps even quite soon if the cycle that jsut ended
didn't actually end after all....

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:04:18 -0700
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Thread finances

On Mon, Jun 23, 1997 at 11:21:21PM -0500, Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> >I'd just like to applaud /dev/joe for his tremendous work in being able to
> >keep up with both threads.  My head would be spinning by now.  I informally
> >request that some gesture of appreciation be made.  A poem by the Poet
> >Laureate or something.
> 
> Aye Aye! I was dizzy. I'll pay the Poet Laureate A$10 for a good poem,
> doubling that if it does justice to the event it is to depict.

You're on...

To /dev/joe for keeping the score,
Which to others always seems such a chore.
Azpiazu addled our wits
With all these thread splits
Our thanks to you forevermore. 

fnord
Poet Laureate

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:10:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Work 

I ahave a lot of Acka work to do and report, and a lot of acka mail to read
and answer.  However, do to a creative scheduling mishap, my plans for this
week have changed drastically.  I will be unavailable for about the next 24
hours.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
who is sorry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:21:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Big RFC: Entity Locations

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> This one certainly took me several hours of groveling over the Ruleset to
> put together, but I'd like to make sure I haven't done anything really
> stupid here.
> 
> Mainly what I'm trying to do is make sure that each ownable entity, at
> least, has a definedlocation.  The meat of this would be the new rule
> 500.4, which defines the location of owned entities depending on whether
> they're "portable" or "static"; the rest is just defining which entities
> are in which category.  I've also done a few other related things, like
> making a few entities unownable(which were only nontradeable, by default).
> 
> Something I might want to move into another proposal is some changes to the
> Museum and Treasure rules, which define entities in the Museum and buried
> in Treasures as owned by entities--the Museum in the first case, and a new
> class of "Treasure-entities" in the second case.  I don't believe it will
> change in any material way the way these things work, but it might make
> some of the language simpler.
> 
> I would particularly like Niccolo Flychuck to make sure I haven't done
> anything really abominable in the small segment where I try to exclude
> Party Chess Pieces' locations from 500.4.
> 
> I'll let the rest of it(hopefully)speak for itself.
> 
> 
> Entity Locations
> 
> Create a new rule, numbered 500.4, named "Entity Locations", with text as
> follows(delimited by SHAMROCK):
> 
> SHAMROCK
> 
> Any ownable entity is either portable or static.  An ownable entity is
> Static unless defined otherwise.
> 
> A portable entity, if owned, is considered to be in the same location as
> the entity which owns it.  If it is unowned, then it is Somewhere Else.
> 
> A static entity, if owned, is considered to be in the Home Location of the
> entity which owns it, if such a location is defined; otherwise it is
> Somewhere Else.  If it is unowned, then it is Somewhere Else.  This rule
> does not apply to Locations themselves, as defined by Rule 835.
> 
> A player's Home Location is eir home.
> 
> 
> In Rule 603, "Points", replace "Points are entities" with "Points are
> ownable, portable entities".  {{[There is no real reason to consider Points
> to have a location, actually, but if they are ownable, they must.  This may
> make things a bit nonintuitive...I would say that a Player carries eir
> points around with em...]}}

You're right. It is unintuitive.

> In Rule 1230.1, "Swingers Play Around I - the board and the playing
> pieces", replace the current text of section 7. with  "Party Chess
> Pieces are ownable, portable entities, whose locations are defined by
> Rules in this suite; this takes precedence over Rule 500.4."
> {{[ Really not sure about this one; if a Party Chess Expert would let
> me know if this would work or not, I'd be obliged. ]}}

I don't see any reason to make Party Chess Pieces portable. 
They are only used in Party Hall.

I assume that your intent with the precedence claim is to have the
location definition of the Party Board and consequently the on-board
pieces take precedence over the default location being the same as the
owning entity.

Party Chess Pieces are owned by Swinger's Offices rather than by Swingers.
For Party Swingers and NAP Swingers one might assume Party Hall as the
location.  For Capital Swingers the situation may be different. I don't
remember any location language in the office rules, but it seems to that
500.4 would make those Offices go around with their owners. Which means
that any off-board pieces will follow them around as well.

I don't think this precedence claim is strong enough. The Party Board
itself is not defined as a location, and it doesn't own the pieces placed
on it. I think it would be simpler to explicitly define the location of
all Party Chess Pieces as Party Hall, and make them non-portable, again,
somwhat unintuitive, but as the entire PartyBoard is located at a single
Location, moving the pices around on the board can't be seen as having
them change locations.  I think this would also be more in the spirit of
Party Chess.

Niccolo Flychuck
Party Chess Expert

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:24:21 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Big RFC: Entity Locations

On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > In Rule 1230.1, "Swingers Play Around I - the board and the playing
> > pieces", replace the current text of section 7. with  "Party Chess
> > Pieces are ownable, portable entities, whose locations are defined by
> > Rules in this suite; this takes precedence over Rule 500.4."
> 	Again, they shouldn't have to take precedence; R500.4 should
> defer.  The Party Chess rules do not define pieces' locations on the
> board, but rather their "positions" which makes for a lot less
> jargon in the Chess rules.  Other than that I couldn't tell ya.
> 
That's another good point. No need to mix up the movement of pieces on the
Party Board with Locations. 

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:45:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: you guessed it

> So anyway, bot should be back up late late late tonight or tomorrow.
> Sorry for the anxiety this is bound to create.
	Oh yes one more thing.  Anything you send to the bot now will
be processed before further results are released, so there's no need
to send it in a different format, or delay sending it.
	This is always the case; I'm sorry for not making that clear
before.
	Looking back I don't think this change will help Acrobot's Web
performance significantly.  It will help turn-around time on mail a
little bit and the bot won't be a cron job anymore.

- -- 
Mohammed
A single aquatic alien from Honduras saved an American from Brazil from
boredom.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 1997 12:58:52 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Chorg 

I am reading the next (6th) page of my Spell Book of Chorg, which
vanishes in a brilliant array of sparkling flashes (much like throwing
magnesium powder through a flame).

Furthermore, I am creating an Organization called GF Mini-storage, Inc.
It is an Acka-business which will store unneeded or unwanted entities in
the basement of the Monument to Futility, which is rather useless when
it's not tornado season.

I am giving GF Mini-storage, Inc. A$200 to cover start-up expenses.

#transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 200 A$

Would a kind soul please inform me how to purchase a Trade Liscence so
that my Acka-business can get off the ground?

Guy Fawkes

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:58:06 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Krykek (Karma)

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC816F.D49F64A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, June 24, 1997 8:29 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Acka: Krykek (Karma)

Karma has been selected as Krykek for the abduction that occurred
on 6/23.

The 6/16 abduction report is also due.

Hopefully that unambiguously describes the Krykek situation, after=20
last night's confusion :)

Malenkai

Great mentor=20
Yesterday you told me a krykek is nothing so now being selected krykek =
for the "abduction?" that occurred means .. Nothing? That is I mean do I =
have to publically state .. something? Or Nothing? What abduction was =
this anyway? I may have wiizzeedd through my email too fast or =
something, I mean.. What do I do as Krykek?

- -karma (unworthy protege)

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC816F.D49F64A0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC816F.D49F64A0--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:08:23 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: W-File Report

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8171.42EDCEA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Monday, June 23, 1997 9:32 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Acka: W-File Report

Last week's W-File report is late, and Krykek has committed a
Crime.

I will pick a Krykek for this week if no one volunteers over=20
the next few hours.

Malenkai
Krykek-Harfer

Great mentor=20

o.k I got it"w-file" I'm gonna have to make a w-file . Just one "?" =
what's a w-file, and how do I make it? Or where can I find the info on =
it?=20
That's 3 questions but the last will answer the rest.

- -Karma (slightly less unworthy protege) =20

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8171.42EDCEA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC8171.42EDCEA0--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:37:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2160 (fwd)

> I don't think it's useless, it implements one of the forms of the
> redistribution of wealth. One far from ideal, but workable, and better
> than nothing.
	I think you're underestimating nothing.  In RL there's a need
and a basis for the redistribution of wealth but in Acka how much
money you have is simply a function of how much effort you put into
that area of the game and how clever you are at it.
	Besides, as Calvin said, I'm poor and that's fine.

- -- 
Mohammed
I always laugh at vampires from Juneau.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:45:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chorg

> Furthermore, I am creating an Organization called GF Mini-storage, Inc.
> It is an Acka-business which will store unneeded or unwanted entities in
> the basement of the Monument to Futility, which is rather useless when
> it's not tornado season.
> 
> I am giving GF Mini-storage, Inc. A$200 to cover start-up expenses.
> 
> #transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 200 A$
> 
> Would a kind soul please inform me how to purchase a Trade Liscence so
> that my Acka-business can get off the ground?

I was wondering when somebody would start doing this.  Not everybody has
founded a church. :-)

Buying a Trade License is an organizational action.  Since you're the
only member, just post (on behalf of the org) an attempt to buy it, and
(on behalf of yourself) an approval of the action, and it happens.  It
costs A$50.

/dev/joe

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2165 

> This proposal does not appear to contain an "approved silly word".  The
> list of such words is in rule 2096.  I guess its invalid then, although
> rule 2096 is unclear as to what effects it actually has on the proposal.

My reading is that the proposal was never made, and Vynd committed a Crime.

ICOCBW....

- -Micah Smukler
AtP

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:43:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Why Not?

It is Wednesday, June 25th, and I am chewing the Gumball.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Cats:Jellicle Songs For Jellicle Cats
Current Book--Jean Lorrah:Ambrov Keon
Give it an understanding but no tongue.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 1997 16:57:02 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: GF Mini-storage, Inc. 

Proposed action: GF Mini-storage, Inc. shall buy a Trade Liscence.

As the sole member of this organization, I am approving of this action,
and so it happens.

GF Mini-storage, Inc., is now open for business.  It will, for a minimal
fee, store unneeded or unwanted entities.  Your stored entities will be
returned upon request.  If you like, a Contract will enforce this return
policy.

As Guy Fawkes, I am offering GF Mini-storage, Inc., 3 Otzma Cards Type
Go Fish for storage.

Proposed action: GF Mini-storage, Inc. shall accept Guy Fawkes' offer of
3 Otzma Cards Type Go Fish.

As the sole member of this organization, I am approving of this action,
and so it happens.

GF Mini-storage, Inc., now has its first satisfied customer, who is now
paying a minimal fee for the storage of his entities in the Chartreuse
Duck locker.

#transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 3 Otzma Cards Type Go Fish
#transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 5 A$

Guy's entites shall be returned upon request.

Guy Fawkes
founder, GF Mini-storage, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:51:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Krykek (Karma)

> Yesterday you told me a krykek is nothing so now being selected krykek
> for the "abduction?" that occurred means .. Nothing? That is I mean do
> I have to publica

Actually I thought you asked what a "krykek-harfer" is.  Sorry about
that.  Krykec, and your duties, are described in rule 1118.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: GF Mini-storage, Inc.

On 25 Jun 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposed action: GF Mini-storage, Inc. shall buy a Trade Liscence.
> 
> As the sole member of this organization, I am approving of this action,
> and so it happens.

Actually, I think it fails.  If the Organization is doing the purchasing,
then it is going to have to pay for it.  I don't think GF Mini-storage
(girlfriend mini-storage??) had any money at this time (or does the
start-up money go to the Org?  I dunno, maybe I should ahve read the
rules, ah well....)

> 
> GF Mini-storage, Inc., is now open for business.  It will, for a minimal
> fee, store unneeded or unwanted entities.  Your stored entities will be
> returned upon request.  If you like, a Contract will enforce this return
> policy.
> 
> As Guy Fawkes, I am offering GF Mini-storage, Inc., 3 Otzma Cards Type
> Go Fish for storage.
> 
> Proposed action: GF Mini-storage, Inc. shall accept Guy Fawkes' offer of
> 3 Otzma Cards Type Go Fish.
> 
> As the sole member of this organization, I am approving of this action,
> and so it happens.
> 
> GF Mini-storage, Inc., now has its first satisfied customer, who is now
> paying a minimal fee for the storage of his entities in the Chartreuse
> Duck locker.
> 
> #transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 3 Otzma Cards Type Go Fish
> #transfer Guy Fawkes, GF Mini-storage, Inc.: 5 A$
> 
> Guy's entites shall be returned upon request.

I think this would all work, if you had the trade liscence. =)

> 
> Guy Fawkes
> founder, GF Mini-storage, Inc.
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:21:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 402 Appeal Verdict

The Supreme Court humbly returns its verdict on CFJ 402. We apologize
for the unconscionable delay.

Included in the below are the original verdict and the two Bronze
Torch reasonsings that were submitted to the main list.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
False was upheld.  The non-Azpiazu thread collapses.  The following
tranacations result.

#award breadbox : -8 A$ : tardy verdict of CFJ 402
#award mr cwm : -8 A$ : tardy verdict of CFJ 402

Jun 25 20:21 EDT: -25 /dev/joe: frivilous appeal of CFJ 402

#award Malenkai : Azpiazu Monster :
#award Malenkai : Silver Pitchfork : (entity)
#award Malenkai : Angry Villager : (title)

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 402
  Subject: Azpiazu
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Alfvaen (declined)
2nd Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 08, 1997, 17:22h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by: /dev/joe
Judgement: FALSE (original verdict upheld)

Statement:

The Blueprint for Azpiazu, a Frankenstein Monster, does not exist.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Sorry, I don't have time to write all this out, but see e-mail on
both sides of the issue by myself and other players in the thread
with "Azpiazu Blueprint" in the subject line.

Vynd's Reasoning:

Despite /dev/joe's lack of reaoning, he is clearly trying to
get at the idea that the Blueprint-under-construction was not, actually,
writen such that all further parts would be rejected.  He claims that by
arbitrarily stating that all further sentences were inb conclict with the
first sentence, the first sentences does not create any actual conflicts.
One of the examples of a conflict given in Rule 597 is "a
self-contradictory blueprint."  In my opinion, nothing could be more
self-contradictory than Blueprint which claims to be in conflict with
itself, except perhaps a Blueprint that claims to be in conflict with
itself even though it isn't.  Seeing as how Azpiazu's
Blueprint-under-construction is either one or the other of these
self-contradictory Blueprints, I feel it was legal and correct for Alfvaen
to put forward the actual Blueprint for Azpiazu.

/dev/joe's Appeal Comments:

If Azpiazu was/would be a self-contradictory blueprint, the one part that
has been added to it is the part that causes a conflict, and therefore
it was rejected.

Malenkai's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

We don't have to judge the previous Judge's reasoning, (although we
do have to judge whether or not adding the Cheez-Whiz part would lead
to a self-contradictory Blueprint).

Here are the counter arguments to some of the arguments, real and
imagined, on this thing, as well as the counter argument to the
self-contradictory claim.

The section from rule 597 that gives the Blueprint-under-construction's
(BUC) content its legal force is:

> If any Part is in conflict with a prior attached Part, (i.e. the two
> Parts would give the Monster mutually-exclusive attributes, (one says
> "the monster is blue," the other "the monster cannot be blue.") or
> would lead to a paradoxical or self-contradictory Blueprint) the new
> Part is rejected, withers, and is discarded.

So, the rules say if the content of the BUC is "the monster is blue",
that content is given the legal force to reject, via Rule 597, parts
such as "the monster is not blue".  Similarily, rule 597 gives the
Cheez-Whiz part legal force in the same manner.

It has also been argued that Blueprints not meeting certain criteria
(such as describing the behaviour of gadgets, etc) cannot be created.
However, rule 597 has precedence over any rules from which these
arguments are derived, and rule 597 *does* describe a procedure under
which these, indeed any, sorts of Blueprints can be created (assuming
the procedure is followed, of course).  This procedure was followed by
the Mad Scientist, including the required accent, thus it was created
as described in the rules.  The argument that the rules do not give
the *Blueprint* the authority to make the Cheez-Whiz part have its
effect miss the mark, because rule 597 already gave the *BUC* this
effect, proceeded becasue of this effect, and now we are past that
part in the process described in rule 597.  As for the argument that
'Blueprints with parts in conflict with the rules are destroyed', that
is not exactly how it works.  In any case, the Cheez-Whiz part is not
in conflict with the rules.

The problem with these arguments, then, in a nutshell, is that rule
597 is allowing the BUC to establish this conflict, the argument is
that *Blueprints* cannot.  By then, it doesn't matter unless the
Blueprint was not created as described in the rules, or some rule
destroys the Blueprint.  That is not the case.

As a corrollary to the preceeding, the argument that the Cheez-Whiz
part would lead to a self-contradictory Blueprint is false.  Once
the Cheez-Whiz part is added, further parts cannot be.  Hence, the
procedure in 597 halts the construction and leads to the Cheez-Whiz
Blueprint we have, not to a contradictory one.  We know when we add
this part that this will happen, thus we know that it will not lead
to a contradictory Blueprint.

In another note, the difference between this case and the case of CFJ
342 was that the part in question referred to the "Blueprint", and
thus was trying to obtain its legal force via the Blueprint rules,
not rule 597 (or set of a conflict in the wrong part of the process).
The part from the Tickle-me-Elmo was:

> At this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and is a Blueprint)
> and no more Parts may ever be added to it.

Indeed, it refers to the constructed Blueprint, or possibly the Monster
itself, providing the basis for CFJ 342's ruling that this part did not,
via rule 597, prevent further parts from being added to the BUC for TME.
The Cheez-Whiz part does not have this weakness, and thus any parallels
to CFJ 342 are inappropriate.

/dev/joe's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

Gist of my argument: The B-U-C "All sentences that follow this one are,
or describe, attributes of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one."
either does not conflict with many reasonable (ok, rather unreasonable,
but possible) following sentences, or it is self-contradictory.

> The section from rule 597 that gives the Blueprint-under-construction's
> (BUC) content its legal force is:
>
> > If any Part is in conflict with a prior attached Part, (i.e. the two
> > Parts would give the Monster mutually-exclusive attributes, (one says
> > "the monster is blue," the other "the monster cannot be blue.") or
> > would lead to a paradoxical or self-contradictory Blueprint) the new
> > Part is rejected, withers, and is discarded.
>
> So, the rules say if the content of the BUC is "the monster is blue",
> that content is given the legal force to reject, via Rule 597, parts
> such as "the monster is not blue".  Similarily, rule 597 gives the
> Cheez-Whiz part legal force in the same manner.

I *still* contend that the the sentence "All sentences that follow this
one are, or describe, attributes of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this
one." does not necessarily conflict with any following sentence.
It doesn't actually *create* a conflict by specifying that it does, any
more than the sentence "the monster is blue" actually makes some monster
be blue, during the phase when it is a B-U-C.  And there are plenty of
sentences such as "Azpiazu is blue, and this sentence conflicts with the
preceding sentence." or even just "Azpiazu is blue." which could follow
it and not conflict with the first sentence.

If, however, you insist that this sentence *does* conflict with any
sentence that could possibly follow it...

> It has also been argued that Blueprints not meeting certain criteria
> (such as describing the behaviour of gadgets, etc) cannot be created.
> However, rule 597 has precedence over any rules from which these
> arguments are derived, and rule 597 *does* describe a procedure under
> which these, indeed any, sorts of Blueprints can be created

Agreed.  This argument (that the blueprint fails to be created because it
does not describe Azpiazu's behavior) fails.

> As a corrollary to the preceeding, the argument that the Cheez-Whiz
> part would lead to a self-contradictory Blueprint is false.  Once
> the Cheez-Whiz part is added, further parts cannot be.  Hence, the
> procedure in 597 halts the construction and leads to the Cheez-Whiz
> Blueprint we have, not to a contradictory one.  We know when we add
> this part that this will happen, thus we know that it will not lead
> to a contradictory Blueprint.

If that sentence causes conflict with all possible later sentences to be
added, it causes the blueprint to be self-contradictory because that
sentence is already self-contradictory -- it claims to conflict with
following sentences which either do not exist [conflict] or which are
guaranteed to not conflict with it, by rule.

Finally, perhaps the most important argument, is that blueprint for Azpiazu,
as published, is self-contradictory.  Its one sentence claims that
sentences which follow it do something (describe attributes of Azpiazu),
yet there are no such sentences.  The rule prevents any part from being
attached which would create a self-contradictory blueprint.  If this is
indeed the blueprint created by the rule, then that part would result
in a self-contradictory blueprint, thus, the part was rejected.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Let us first be clear what actually entails a conflict. Rule 597
spells this out: the Blueprint Under Construction must either describe
mutually exclusive attributes, contain a paradox, or contradict
itself. It is the last case that is important here.

Now, there are three related arguments running through this CFJ. Let
us examine them in turn.

I. A sentence cannot create a conflict by merely saying it does.

The court agrees with the basic sentiment in this argument. However,
if one sentence claims that it conflicts with a second sentence, and
no such conflict exists, then clearly the first sentence is wrong ...
which means that the Blueprint Under Construction is contradicting
itself.

For example, if the sentence "Azpiazu is blue" was brought to the Mad
Scientist, it would clearly not be in conflict with the first
sentence, and therefore the Blueprint Under Construction would contain
a contradiction. Thus the second sentence would have to be rejected.

(It is important to remember that when the Mad Scientist attempts to
graft a new sentence that creates a conflict, it is always the new
sentence that is rejected, even when the "source" of the conflict
seems to be a prior sentence.)

II. Not every possible second sentence would conflict with the
    existing Blueprint.

/dev/joe gives the clever example: "Azpiazu is blue, and this sentence
conflicts with the previous one." However, the prior argument still
holds here. Claiming twice that a conflict exists still does not
automatically create one. This sentence agrees with both claims of the
first (it describes an attribute, and asserts that it is in conflict),
and thus fails to actually be in conflict with it. Thus the Blueprint
Under Construction contradicts itself, and this sentence would also be
rejected.

An obverse example would be: "This is the second sentence of Azpiazu's
Blueprint, and it conflicts with the previous one." This addition
would actually vindicate the first sentence's claim of there being a
conflict, because it does not (contrary to what the first sentence
says) describe an attribute of Azpiazu. But then, of course, the
Blueprint is self-contradictory on the face of it.

Clearly, any additions to this Blueprint Under Construction must
either validate the claim of there being a conflict or not. Either way
leads to a self-contradictory Blueprint.

III. The first sentence should have been rejected itself, because it
     refers to sentences that do not exist.

The Court agrees that this is the most important argument to consider.
Once again, the alleged Blueprint Under Construction reads: "All
sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes of
Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one." Which seems to say that the
empty set (i.e., a statement zero sentences long) conflicts with
it. This would appear to require that some kind of statement is
embodied in the empty set, for else how could a conflict be created?
This situation does not admit easily to a clear-cut answer.

However, first note that the sentence does not actually state that
there are any following sentences, merely that all the ones that do
follow 1) detail attributes of Azpiazu, and 2) conflict with the first
sentence.

Consider a similar example: "All sentences that follow this one are
written with chartreuse ink, and are anagrams of this one." If nothing
followed such a sentence, there would be no contradiction. The
sentence is certainly superfluous, and perhaps even misleading, but
not, technically speaking, false.

In mathematics, it is recognized that the empty set is always a subset
of any given set. Likewise, the Court feels that the set of sentences
following the first one in Azpiazu's Blueprint Under Construction
(i.e., the empty set) is also a subset of the set of all sentences
that conflict with the sentence in Azpiazu's Blueprint Under
Construction. Therefore, said sentence does not, in and of itself,
create a contradiction, and was successfully grafted.

The Court thus finds that the Blueprint for Azpiazu does indeed exist,
and upholds the original verdict.

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #163
*******************************