On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:30:24AM -0500, Timothy Hunt wrote: > > The issue, of course, is that a "simple" statement to someone used to > > the assumptions of logic may be hideously complex to somebody who isn't > > ("What do you mean the rule is 'Either there are no blue pyramids or all > > blue pyramids must be flat'? That's too hard!"), and vice versa ("Your > > rule was 'There must be at least one blue pyramid AND all blue pyramids > > must be flat'? I thought you said it didn't require a compound > > statement!") > > Which is why Kory made the (IMO) excellent choice to disallow the null koan. Yeah, although notice that my last example is a problem even without the null koan. The null koan just introduces a lot *more* corner cases, which are more likely to have this confusion. As stated elsewhere, it's also hard to see on the table. While I happen to like playing with the null koan, I'm inclined to agree that it's best it not be in the official rules. For the reasons discussed.
Description: PGP signature