ethanb wrote:Mainly I just was wondering about the statement that J1989 rules require two-eyes but don't define them. It seems to me that it is entirely possible to unambiguously define life without making reference to eyes, and I was wondering if that is in fact what they did,
They tried and failed, see my commentaries.
or is it actually a flaw in them as written? it sounded as though you were saying that the flaw was in the lack of definition of "two-eyes," not in the lack of definition for life.
The flaw is in teaching the players as readers of the J1989 rules badly, especially while not knowing yet of Chris Dams's later proof.