83,194
edits
The curious structure of an MTN: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
:(ii) if it is red: | :(ii) if it is red: | ||
::(a) may be used for test cricket | ::(a) may be used for test cricket | ||
::(b) must not be used for one-day cricket | |||
:(iii) if it is white: | :(iii) if it is white: | ||
::(a) must not be used for test cricket | ::(a) must not be used for test cricket | ||
::(b) may be used for one-day cricket | |||
}}</small> | }}</small> | ||
Three non-branching propositions where the subject is the game. | Three non-branching propositions where the subject is the game. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
How you structure these variables can great more or less complicatedness. If we try to create a single proposition that covers all eventualities, we commit ourselves to a lot downstream branching, because that our single logical structure must accommodate all the permutations. | How you structure these variables can great more or less complicatedness. If we try to create a single proposition that covers all eventualities, we commit ourselves to a lot downstream branching, because that our single logical structure must accommodate all the permutations. | ||
The '''subject''' of the sentence and '''sequence''' of the branches makes a difference. | The '''subject''' of the sentence and '''sequence''' of the branches makes a difference. For example, focussing on the ball first then its colour then its shape, and articulating these by reference to the games, commits to sixteen branches. If we break the proposition into two and focus first on shape, we can reduce this to five. if we reframe the proposition to focus on the game, we can get it down to the three, which is the minimum. | ||
There is doubtless some information theory that optimises the logical structure, but intuitively it seems to us common options should be delayed as far as possible, and where games are largely common, separating out the points where they differ into a separate set of propositions may help. | There is doubtless some information theory that optimises the logical structure, but intuitively it seems to us common options should be delayed as far as possible, and where games are largely common, separating out the points where they differ into a separate set of propositions may help. | ||
Back to our medium term notes | Back to our [[medium term note]]s: base terms and conditions are designed to set out options — allow registered or bearer form, for example, and listed or unlisted notes, or interest bearing, fixed or floating. The majority of the conditions will apply to all, but with variations. The art — it’s probably a science of information theory, but for legal eagles it is a lost art — is working out when to embed that variability in the body of your conditions, and when to set it out as a separate proposition. | ||
Still thinking about it. | |||