Cube & Nadenka
Cube
I’ve been pondering whether the way courts decide on precedents could be treated as a kind of mathematical function. Curious if that resonates with your experience.
Nadenka
That’s an intriguing angle, and it does line up with how we track precedent. In many cases the logic feels almost algorithmic—if X happened before, then Y will follow. But the courts add layers of context, intent, and societal shifts that a pure function can’t capture. So I can see the pattern, but the law still resists being reduced to a simple equation.
Cube
You’re right; a pure function misses the contextual variables. Maybe treat precedent as a multivariable function—each argument represents intent, societal pressure, or procedural nuance. Then the law becomes a surface that can shift, rather than a fixed line.
Nadenka
I like that framing, turning precedent into a surface that can tilt with intent, society, and procedure. It’s still a puzzle, but at least it acknowledges that the law isn’t a straight line. And that’s what keeps me digging—finding the angles that make the argument truly work.
Cube
Sounds like a neat model—an ever‑tilting plane of precedent. Keep mapping those angles, and you’ll find where the law settles into a stable shape.
Nadenka
Glad you see the picture. I’ll keep plotting the angles—just don’t expect me to settle the whole thing into a single point.