(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] unrequitedthai.livejournal.com at 06:19pm on 08/02/2005
When you say "not necessarily achievable", you you saying that the burden of proof lies on me to show that, for a given task, some system exists that does not break?

Because I have done that. I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that some logically possible task exists for which no system can be devised that does not break.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
evilmagnus: (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] evilmagnus at 07:36pm on 08/02/2005
meh?

I gave the example of the 1st Ed D&D 'head hack' execution. That's a System that, I think, fails to satisfactorily resolve a logical in-game event.

So it's a bad System. Does that mean I have to prove that a task exists for which no System can cope? I don't think so. But show me a sufficiently complex system and I can probably come up with a scenario where it breaks.

...depending on the definition of 'break'. :)
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
1
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31