[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Bah. My original statement said exactly what I meant it to say.

Uh huh.

Posted by Imperator Fyron:
Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.

ParaphraseUsed correctly) AND Talisman => (Impossible to defeat)

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Obviously you are confused about my statements. Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman.

"Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman."
Paraphrase: (Playing well) AND talisman <> (impossible to defeat)

Compare that to the first paraphrase:
(Used correctly) AND Talisman => (Impossible to defeat)

Assuming that "Used correctly" is a subset of "Playing well", those two paraphrases are at odds with each other.

So, are we going to do this with real logic, where you walk through your reading and mine to find specific points of contention, or are you just going to contradict me and leave it at that?

---

For reference, the thread I pulled the Last two quotes from: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron

---

---

Or do you mean the one where you were incensed at my insulting you by "original statement"?

Edit: added a "paraphrase" that I had forgotten to make it clear that I'm repeating what I read Fyron's post as translated into a light Version of set notation, rather than saying something of my own.

Edit: changed "second" to "Last" for clairity on which two quotes I was referring to on the reference section.

Edit: changed "=" to "=>" for better set notation.

Edit: Notation explanation: A => B is A implies B; A <> B is A does not imply B

[ July 21, 2003, 09:35: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]