The definition of <-> in terms of previous can’t be right, that’s always 1 regardless of a and b. Also you missed the vs in the formula for <->.
(Also it’s kinda iffy that weak disjunction is a stronger statement than strong disjunction...)
I don’t think so? If we substitute things it ends up being min(1−va+vb,1−vb+va) (restricted to [0, 1]) which is a perfectly cromulent formula.
It was previously strong_disjunction(a->b,b->a) instead of weak_conjunction(a->b,b->a) :P.
(I wonder how one decides whether to use weak or strong conjunction there...)
Yeah! I’m just going with what Wikipedia said there (unless I’ve made an error), but I had the same thought.
The definition of <-> in terms of previous can’t be right, that’s always 1 regardless of a and b. Also you missed the vs in the formula for <->.
(Also it’s kinda iffy that weak disjunction is a stronger statement than strong disjunction...)
I don’t think so? If we substitute things it ends up being min(1−va+vb,1−vb+va) (restricted to [0, 1]) which is a perfectly cromulent formula.
It was previously strong_disjunction(a->b,b->a) instead of weak_conjunction(a->b,b->a) :P.
(I wonder how one decides whether to use weak or strong conjunction there...)
Yeah! I’m just going with what Wikipedia said there (unless I’ve made an error), but I had the same thought.