On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote: > I've just realised that dependant actions are still broken. Thanks for > the withdrawal anyway.
You know, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the arguments, but I really don't thing dependent actions have to be judged broken. Consider: Originally, the rule relied on a single list-based linguistic convention to decide whether the A, B, and C were logically 'A and B and C' vs. 'A or B or C'. (The IFF contains no qualifier like "IFF all are true; if at least one is true"). The original rule was IFF A ,B and, C which, in linguistic convention, maps to the logical IFF A and B and C. The new rule is IFF A, B and, C, D which breaks the common linguistic mapping. So there's no absolute guarantee that this maps to IFF A and B and C and D. Given the placement of the 'and', it could just as easily map to IFF (A and B and C) or D which is not broken at all, reasonable, and in keeping with the intent where the rule is unclear and for the good of the game. The alternate that A, B and C, D => A and B and C and D does not keep to linguistic convention, is against the intent, and not particularly for the good of the game. There's no support that one should infer "IFF all of" versus "at least one of" in list qualifiers in general. Forgive me if this has been refuted already, I may have missed a subtlety and this is up to a judge (given an actual judgement), but, just sayin'. -G.
