Lobster Fishing Boat Design

Follow the rules / 3

Faced with a rule, generally we have the conviction that there is a correct interpretation that will explain how to follow the rule.
But there is a correct interpretation? And above all: what is it?

When we are faced with a sign with an arrow pointing forward that we continue to teach us. Suppose, however, that a person who comes when he sees the sign back, because he believes that sign to indicate exactly what you're doing. Then we will explain the significance of the cartel, in fact , is to go forward. But the other says that he is exactly going forward, he understood in this way going forward.
We could try to explain further, but could still not understand, until we decide to show an action to our party what it means for us to follow the cartel.

Or think to ask a mathematician to complete the following sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
The mathematician, unexpectedly, complete with the numbers 5:48, 8.4, 14.2, ... We do not
We disagree, arguing that the proper continuation is obviously 5, 6, 7, ..., but the math says that its completion is given by a sequence derived from the simplest polynomial which can be derived also first part of the succession.
In short, if P (x) = x 4 / 50-x 3 / 5 + 2 x 7 / 10 +12 / 25, then we have that P (1) = 1, P (2 ) = 2, P (3) = 3, P (4) = 4, P (5) = 5:48, P (6) = 8.4, P (7) = 14.2, ...

be within the meanings we fail to highlight what is the correct interpretation.

Our paradox was this: a rule can not determine any way to act, since any mode of action may be brought in agreement with the rule. The answer was: If it can be made an agreement with the rule may also be put at odds with it. Here there are therefore no contradiction or agreement (1).

But what we wanted to prove with this talk? That any rule can be interpreted in an arbitrary manner?
The aim, rather, is to show that there is an unbridgeable gap between interpretation of a rule and mode of action.
If, then, we are convinced that a rule must be followed in a very specific way, where does that course of action? Surely not interpretation, but from a training .

(1) L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations , Einaudi 1983 (1953), § 201, p. 108.