On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:22, comex<com...@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 retract the above proposal (which wasn't distributable anyway >> because I forgot II=0) and submit the following, making it >> distributable: > > (Either (X and Y) or (not X)) is logically equivalent to (If X then Y)). So > this proposal just adds verbosity, functionally equivalent to striking With > Notice in the existing rule. Though, as the present wording seems to be > confusing to some, perhaps verbosity is a good thing...
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. Maybe I just don't get it. Whatever the case the current wording seemed ambiguous enough that everyone in Agora missed the proper functioning of the rule until after the proposal was adopted. This alone seems a good reason to clarify it in more understandable terms. BobTHJ
