What is law and why needed

 

Following originates as why I became a diploma holder lawyer in cyberlaw. IRRELEVANT ARE LEGAL COMMENTS AND JUDGMENTS. It simply says why I can wrap normal human beings in a web of split-the-hair issues fairly easily and why is this kind of thinking needed in any document - to anticipate such attacks and fail them or use them to defend.

Any document is made of words. Collectively, it forms a case. In order to understand its meaning, every word has to be expanded in context. Being a semanticist of formal languages, it is clear that word meanings require multiple layers of context. For simplicity, context is assumed to be independent conflict able overlap of simple contexts. These range from legal population, entire case/document with explicit meanings, section and sentence. Large sized context implicitly surrounds every word. The full frame of each word requires massive context filling, mostly solvable using contexts. What makes even theoretic process hard is that all the full contexts demanded every word are rarely exp-licitly handled but elided with the assumption that they can be properly and unambiguously reconstructed, alas not so and even distinct with the author with time and slow change of word meaning.

In formal languages, it is called binding. Meaning of any word for a particular set of bindings is obtained by disambiguate d contexts. The very frame embedding a word may depend on binding. Conservative lawyers require contemporaneous binding as the authors. It is called lexical binding. Dynamic binding happens when all the Neo-lawyers change binding to the decision time frame. No matter what the old turkeys thought, what anyone understands today is what it means today! Clearly what a law means is what it means today, not that constructed by a foggy lawyer or translator who somehow reinterprets history!

There is lot more, may not be relevant to the reason of linking. Consider a robot. If command is spoken to the machine, an easy fix is to speak back what is understood in all complex cases. Simple commands should be executed at once. In complex or ambiguous cases, accent is needed for all derived command. ALL COMMANDS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS ARE BEST HANDLED BY LISTING THE INTERPRETATIONS. SIMPLIFICATION IS POSSIBLE BY CONSTRAINING INTERPRETATIONS BY RESTRICTING TO A DOMAIN OF ACTION BY A WORD OR TWO. In any case, ambiguity is always possible and how situations are handled is critical. The ideal solution is restricting the action domain, and use simple subsets of natural languages. There is enormous similarity between formal and natural languages by thinking of each adjective or adverb as an abstract enumeration or other type or instance.

My asli language

Not implemented yet, it is a declarative language that provides gradual typing and program refinement from standard inefficient to specialized code. In other words, a program starts with an executable specification and is refined either by better implementation or specification. Every step is executable and implementable by applying delta program for the current code. FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT WILL IMPLEMENT PROCEDURES BY PROCEDURE VARIABLES AND HAVE A UNIQUE DIFFERENT WAY OF DEBUG ON PROJECT AND PRODUCT SITES. Never mind the frustrated laments of yesterday greats.

All the past great languages implemented great standard libraries that are agonistically usable. In terms of precise distinction of asli, the most basic is built-in compiler of attributed grammars doing simple context-sensitive things, without becoming general grammars, implementing special kind of nullification.

In fact, the included attribute grammar is powerful enough to implement arbitrary constraint possible in gene edit of CRISPR cas9. THE GENERIC GENE SLICE CAN BE RESTRICTED TO JUST SPECIFIED GENE PATTERN IN ONE PART OF DNA.