Excerpts from Jeff Zeitlin's message of Mon Aug 01 17:34:24 -0400 2011:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:16:26 -0400, Allen Firstenberg
> <prisoner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >To use a simpler example, if I have the rule "all warm" in mind, and you
> >express it as "only contains red and yellow", then we have equivalent rules,
> >even tho we have not phrased it the same way. This is why there is a
> >discussion between the master and the student to make sure they both
> >understand each other.
>
> Cultural externality. 'All warm' is not necessarily equivalent to 'only
> red and yellow'; suppose I'm playing with all ... eleven? twelve? ...
> colors. Is orange a 'warm' color? If so, the two rules are not
> equivalent. Suppose I consider colors 'warm' or 'cool' based on the
> emissive temperature of a star of the respective color; that makes blue
> and white 'warm' colors, and red a 'cool' color.
>
> Referencing the Spock rule, if expressed as 'warm colors', would he have
> the same interpretation, and thus mark the koan properly?
Still a valid rule: the master knows what set of warm colors they're
referring to, and will consistently mark koans according to that rule.
Their shorthand for it ("warm colors") is misleading, and Spock might
need to ask for the rule to be more precisely worded ("akhtbn iff all
pieces are colored in {red, yellow, orange}"), but the rule is valid.
When a student guesses "all warm", it similarly might be necessary to
clarify what "all warm" means. Again, though, the problem here isn't an
invalid rule, but a valid rule described with potentially imprecise
language (but still valid if adjudicated with appropriate precision).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature