[BLML] a new sort of claim

Adam Beneschan adam at irvine.com
Thu May 20 17:52:51 CEST 2010


 
> ton:
> As we have tried to explain before the laws are not a set of independent
> sentences, each of which can be isolated and understood on its own. 
> 
> Let us take the following case:
> 
> In law X it says:  Dummy can not claim
> 
> And in law Y (Y>X) it says: any statement to the effect that a contestant
> will win a specific number of tricks is a claim.
> 
> Now we need clever human beings to draw the conclusion that a dummy making
> such statement does not create a claim. 
> 
> This is even true when X>Y, but then there is a slight reason to complain. 

If you're suggesting that the numbering of the Laws has some bearing
on when one Law should take precedence over another, I don't think
this is reasonable.  As far as I can tell, the numbering of the Laws
is done with the purpose of organizing them into sections and making
the right Law easier to find, not to make any statement about which
Law is the correct one when two seem to contradict.  

                                -- Adam



More information about the Blml mailing list