Timothy Hunt writes:
>Yes, I'm being a little facetious with my comment about ambiguity.
>But just because YOU see it as unambiguous and rule one way doesn't
>mean that someone else can't see it as unambiguous, and rule the other
>way. Both of you would be convinced that there was no ambiguity.
Well, yes, that was exactly my point.
Really, of course, -if- you're playing with the null koan, it's a
terrible rule; that kind of rule should be expressed as one of either:
Contains pieces, all of which are grounded.
Contains no ungrounded pieces.
I favor the latter if unspecified, first because it's a simpler rule
(no compound), and second because I don't, in fact, think that
"contains only" means it has to contain any, linguistically.
The thing is, if you play with the null koan, you have that many more
ways to complicate your rules--moreover, because people don't think
the same way, there are more ways to accidentally mess up the
players. Thus "doesn't add much."
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Did you know, if you increment enough, you /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ get an extra digit?" "I knew," weeps Six. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ "We knew. But we had forgotten." '---''(_/--' (_/-'