Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:18:31 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 16:17:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>On December 15, 2003 at 14:33:16, Peter Berger wrote:
>
>>On December 15, 2003 at 13:51:19, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>
>>>On December 15, 2003 at 10:12:13, Thomas Mayer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Omid,
>>>>
>>>>I don't really get your point in this discussion. I think you can not claim Bob
>>>>that he would only participate when he thinks that he can win -
>>>
>>>Let's review again what I said:
>>>
>>>"If you think you have a chance to win, you will participate".
>>>
>>>"chance to win" -> "participation".
>>>
>>>This statement doesn't say *anything* at all about the state of "no chance to
>>>win". For some reason Bob thinks that
>>>
>>>"chance to win" -> "participation"
>>>
>>>is equivalent to
>>>
>>>"no chance to win" -> "no participation"
>>>
>>>which is terribly wrong.
>>
>>Your claim is partly wrong, isn't it? Your statement *does* say something about
>>the state of "no chance to win".
>
>It doesn't say anything about the state of "no chance to win" being the
>condition.
>
>Based on what I said, any of the following can be true:
>
>"no chance to win" -> "participation"
>"no chance to win" -> "no participation"
>
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they
would have shown up.
"thought that had any chance" -> "they would have shown up".
I can _prove_ I had chances to win. So why didn't I show up?
Answer? Your statement is _wrong_.
QED.
>
>>
>>Basic logic tells us: "no participation" -> "no chance to win". ;)
>>
>>Peter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.