============================== CFJ 1806 ==============================
In rule 2126, spending N+1 or N+2 VCs of different colors means that
more than one color must be involved.
Called by pikhq: 24 Nov 2007 19:39:29 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 28 Nov 2007 14:04:01 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by Zefram: 29 Nov 2007 16:00:30 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 30 Nov 2007 04:23:21 GMT
Appealed by pikhq: 30 Nov 2007 04:30:48 GMT
Appealed by Levi: 30 Nov 2007 04:32:05 GMT
Appeal 1806a: 30 Nov 2007 04:34:12 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 01 Dec 2007 03:44:51 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 01 Dec 2007 03:44:51 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by Zefram: 01 Dec 2007 08:44:01 GMT
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
This statement is open to multiple interpretations. It might be asking
whether the meaning of the phrase "spend N+1 VCs of different colors"
is *entirely* represented by the alternative phrase "more than one color
must be involved". That is trivially false, because the latter phrase
omits the aspects of spending and VCs. It might be asking whether the
phrase "spend N+1 VCs of different colors" *implies* that more than one
color must be involved. That is also false, but not so trivially: if N=0
then the phrase simplifies to "spend 1 VC of different colors", implying a
single color. However, other text in rule 2126 not incorporated into the
statement excludes the N=0 case. This leads to a third interpretation,
that the statement asks whether the situations in which N+1 VCs are
spent in rule 2126 necessarily involve more than one color. In this
interpretation the statement is true, because the N+1 VCs are always at
least 2 VCs (of different colors).
The disjunction in the statement is a further layer of complication.
The statement might be asking whether what it posits (whichever that is)
is true for *both* N+1 and N+2 cases, or whether it is true for *either*
the N+1 or N+2 cases. This makes little difference.
I judge CFJ 1806 to be UNDECIDABLE due to unclarity.
I suspect that what the initiator intended to ask is whether the meaning
of "of different colors" in rule 2126 is precisely that there be at least
two colors involved. The statement in this CFJ doesn't seem to admit of
this interpretation, but I'll address it anyway. I find that this is not
the meaning of "of different colors". Rather, the meaning is that all the
VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color; when spending N+1 VCs "of
different colors" there must be exactly N+1 distinct VC colors involved.
This is the way that the phrase was consistently intended and understood
when many amendments to rule 2126 were proposed and proto-proposed earlier
this year, and the way that it has been consistently interpreted since
then until the initiator's recent spending attempts. More importantly,
it is the most natural interpretation of the phrase.
Appellant Murphy's Arguments:
Judge Zefram's reasoning is sound, but as of the adoption of Proposal
5296, the appropriate judgement resulting from such reasoning is
UNDETERMINED rather than UNDECIDABLE. I recommend that the panel
REMAND to Zefram so that e can make this correction.
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
I accept the panel's proposed correction, and judge CFJ 1806 UNDETERMINED
due to unclarity of its statement.