============================== CFJ 2006 ==============================
ehird's vote in the Assessor election is valid.
Called by avpx: 13 Jun 2008 03:13:02 GMT
Assigned to omd: 13 Jun 2008 05:59:47 GMT
omd recused: 25 Jun 2008 13:46:55 GMT
Assigned to G.: 26 Jun 2008 03:03:14 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 26 Jun 2008 16:53:18 GMT
The amount of computing power required to calculate this is far
greater than we have now and would probably take longer than the life
age of the universe to finish. Though a funny and creative reference
to xkcd, I'm not sure if conditional statements like this where the
condition is impossible to test at present can possibly be valid. It
won't likely affect the election, but even so, it would be good to
officially clarify how we deal with these situations.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
This situation has already been officially clarified. It is exactly the
sort of thing that Judge Maud presciently describes, in the first paragraph
of eir arguments for CFJ 1460, as requiring "unreasonably excessive effort."
I note that figuring out how many votes were cast in Maud's example would
lead to much more useful and clever advances in mathematical sciences
then would the present example. FALSE.
Judge G.'s Evidence:
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Elliott Hird)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:48:12 +0100
Subject: BUS: [IADoP] Assessor election
For the purposes of this message, 'xkcd' means A(g_64,g_64), where A
is the Ackermann function
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function) and g_64 is Graham's
If xkcd contains the sequence of digits '314159265', I vote ROOT.
Otherwise, I vote MURPHY.
Rule 2127/2 (Power=1) Conditional Votes [extract]
The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
condition(s) can be reasonably determined...