On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 13:22, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hicks 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 will trivially allow someone to
>
2009/8/30 Geoffrey Spear :
> I give notice that I intend to audit BobTHJ. This proposal would
> remove the loophole e created that will trivially allow someone to
> create 24 Rests in eir possession and deregister em, and if e wants to
> block it's distribution I'll be happy to demonstrate.
ouch
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
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Pavitra 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?".
I
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Pavitra 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?".
--
-c.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> 2009/8/28 Roger Hicks :
(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 Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/8/28 Roger Hicks :
>>> (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 th
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Roger Hicks :
>> (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.
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.
I believe you're confusing "if" with "iff".
Do we need to add IF,IMPLIES,SUFFICIENT and IFF,IF AND ONLY IF,NECESSARY
AND SUFFICIENT to MMI?
signature.asc
Des
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Roger Hicks 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
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
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, 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
2009/8/28 Roger Hicks :
> (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 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
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:22, comex wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks 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 pro
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks 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
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 08:47 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:35, Sean Hunt 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 play Com
17 matches
Mail list logo
