Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] [Zendo] Another Spock Rule question

  • Fromgentzel@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • DateWed, 3 Aug 2011 17:09:21 -0400
Just to illustrate how tricky this can get (and to what degree specifying
rules in an unavoidably ambiguous and imprecise language affects the legality
of the rule):

What about when the bulb burns out?  Every bulb has a finite lifetime.  And
even if shedding no light, it could still be considered "the only source of
light".  Also it was not specified if the bulb was on, or was even connected
to a source of power.

International foot?  Survey foot?

Rules such as this, even if considered legal by some, require such a detailed
description that there will *always* be amgiguity and uncertainty.  As such,
they can always be argued as being illegal under at least some interpretation
of the language and hence are effectively illegal for that reason.

At least in my games...

Marc Hartstein writes:
>An example: akhtbn iff, when viewed with the only source of light being a
>[brand-name] 100W Soft White bulb installed perpendicular to the surface
>in [specify lamp] 10' above the surface and positioned above the
>gravitational center of the koan, it has a piece whose shadow touched
>no other piece but points toward at least one.
>Another terrible rule, but it again actually describes a precise
>physical relationship between the pieces in the koan which can be
>evaluated independent of time, orientation, or location. In fact, it
>could be described without having to refer to the light source, it's
>just much easier to do so taking it into account.

David Gentzel