Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromBuddha Buck <blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 3 Aug 2011 17:54:30 -0400
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:09 PM,  <gentzel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

If the Master judges the koans consistently, does it matter?

What about the slight modification: "akhtbni, given the centroid of
the convex hull of the footprint of the Koan C and the point O 3m
directly above C, there exists a pyramid A with these three
properties: (1) no ray originating at O and passing through A also
passes through any other pyramid B after A, (2) the line passing
through the tip of A and the O does not pass through any other point
of A, and (3) The half-plane bordered by C and O which contains the
tip of A also intersects a second pyramid farther from the border of
the half-plane than the tip of A" ?