Index ← 3429 CFJ 3430 3436 → text
==============================  CFJ 3430  ==============================

       Rule 2429 is paradoxical.


Caller:                       nichdel                  

Judge:                        ais523
Judgement:                    FALSE



Called by nichdel:            06 Oct 2014        
Assigned to ais523:           06 Oct 2014                
Judged FALSE by ais523:       09 Oct 2014


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2429 states "Whitespace is generally insignificant, except for
paragraph breaks."

Every definition of "whitespace" I checked (list at the end) includes
or does not reasonably bar the "space" character from being

Thus, Rule 2429 by its own logic also says
Arguably this string is meaningless, though it's reasonably possible
to decipher the original format of the sentence.

However, Rule 2429 also says "Whites pace is generally in significant,
except for paragraph break s." Since this is not only nonesense but
also nonesense that refers to an unindentified "break s," this is
clearly a different meaning that the meaning implied by the version
currently on the SLR.

The second and third renderings of 2429 have a different meaning than
the first and say nothing about whether or not whitespace is
significant. If whitespace is not significant, then rule 2429 (and
most other rules) have extremely ambiguous meanings, many of which do
not say that whitespace is significant. Therefore if Rule 2429 is
true, it both does and does not say that whitespace is insignificant,
in the exact same sentence and the exact same clause of that sentence.



Gratuitous Arguments by Rulekeepor omd:


Supplemental Edition (Single Rule)


Rule 217/11 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules

      Wh    en  interpr  et     in
       ga  nd  ap     pl yi     ng
        ther   ul     es ,t     he
         te    xt     of th     er
         ul    es     ta ke     sp
         re    ce     de nc     e.
         Wh     erethet   extissi

         len    t,       in
        co ns   is       te
       nt   ,o  ru       nc
      le     ar ,i       ti
      stobeaugm en       te
      db     yg am       ec
      us     to m,common sense,pa

       stjudg  em     en  ts,and  co    ns
      id    er at     io no    ft he   be
      st       in     te re       st  so
       fthega  me     .D ef       initi
            on sa     nd pr       es  cr
      ip    ti on     si nt    he ru   le
       sareon   lytobea   pplied  us    in




Judge ais523's Arguments:

There are two sensible readings of rule 2429. One is as the presumably
intended "It is insignificant what choices in whitespace are made when
representing rules as text"; with this interpretation, nothing is
broken. However, it somewhat contradicts rule 2141, which implies that a
rule content is text itself, rather than being a sequence of words that
is merely represented as text.

The other reading is "In general, it is possible to add or remove
whitespace (other than paragraph breaks) from a rule without changing
its meaning". As written, this is simply a false statement, and as the
caller points out, it cannot sensibly be interpreted as a legal fiction.
The situation is similar to that of a hypothetical rule which states
"This rule can be interpreted with an interpretation other than the
obvious one". I don't see a paradox or contradiction there, just a lie.

I judge CFJ 3430 FALSE.