On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 13:22, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I play Committee to make FIXME undistributable.
I give notice that I intend to audit BobTHJ. This proposal would
remove the loophole e created that
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
(If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y))
Jesus
flippin'
Christ
on
a
pogo
stick
Please tell me this was a typo.
It's true for CANs on regulated things because the default state is not Y.
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
(If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y))
Jesus
flippin'
Christ
on
a
pogo
stick
Please tell me this was a typo.
It's true for CANs on regulated things
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
(If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y))
Jesus
flippin'
Christ
on
a
pogo
stick
Please tell me this was a typo.
It's true for CANs on
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that R754(3) fails to establish a precedence relation
between legal and mathematical definitions.
I've never seen if A, then B used as iff as an _expression_-- to
answer is it true that if A, then B?.
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Pavitra wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
And it's also true under the related legal maxim (not mathematical logic)
of exceptio probat regulam (de rebus non exceptis). Overuse of
mathematical symbolic constructs in the courts and in law makes us forget
that legal logic may
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 08:47 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:35, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal and play Distrib-u-Matic to make it
Distributable:
FIXME (II=1, AI=3)
Why kill the rest of the otherwise functioning proposal?
I
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to be honest the whole thing doesn't make sense. comex's
arguments only further convinced me that the rule has been broken all
along. I retract the above proposal (which wasn't distributable anyway
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:22, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to be honest the whole thing doesn't make sense. comex's
arguments only further convinced me that the rule has been broken all
along. I
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 09:45 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else
(not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me.
Err, no it doesn't.
If X then Y implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns out
to be true.
--
ais523
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com:
(If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else (not Y))
Jesus
flippin'
Christ
on
a
pogo
stick
Please tell me this was a typo.
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 16:52 +0100, ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 09:45 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
I don't see the equivalence. (If X then Y) implies (if X then Y else
(not Y)) which is why it seems broken to me.
Err, no it doesn't.
If X then Y implies nothing about the truth value of
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 16:52 +0100, ais523 wrote:
If X then Y implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns out
to be true.
That should read:
If X then Y implies nothing about the truth value of Y if X turns
out to be false.
Obviously, I suck at correcting things.
--
ais523
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
If the action is to be performed With Notice then there are no
restrictions are imposed on Agora being Satisfied with the intent.
English please.
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I
14 matches
Mail list logo
