Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all
comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread.
Show more comments above.
It technically is redundant, though, because it has the form (A=>~B)&(B=>~A), while A=>~B and B=>~A are equivalent to each other. It doesn't need to be symmetrized because the statement was symmetric in the first place, even if it wasn't stated in an obviously symmetric form such as ~(A&B). (Going to have to say I like the redundant version for emphasis, though.)
All it takes is a username and password
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?