RobertJasiek wrote:
Currently I lack time for a liguistic analysis of the 1996 rules. However, I disagree with the following.
You say that, in a quadruple ko initially with each non-single-stone string having exactly two breaths, WLOG the white string is said by the rules to have two REAL breaths. You conclude that the string is alive. Before making this conclusion, how can you assess that the breaths are real?
Ing '96, Rule 4: Life and Death; Breath types, states:
Quote:
All internal breaths are real breaths with a minimum of two real breaths for a live group:
RobertJasiek wrote:
ATM I do not have the 1996 booklet in my hands so I do not know if there is a precedental declaration for this quadruple ko. Supposing there is not. Real breaths are not something given a priori because one needs to distinguish them from unreal breaths. We cannot presume "alive" because of vicious circle. The only suitable means is by the possibility of forcing removal presuming some ruleset for constructing sequences.
Requiring life and death to be determined by removal alone, as earlier versions of the Ing rules did, leads to circular reasoning. That is why, I believe, Ing quietly dropped that principle from the '96 rules, whereas it is the first principle of the '91 rules.