Based on the literal interpretation of the actual wording of Bart's quotation of Merrill's Pij definition, that definition is the same as my Pij definition, as I said at the time. As I said then, both Pij definitions define the same probability, and they're just 2 wordings of the same definition. I said that, and then Richard said that they defined different probabilities. Bottom line: I was right. Richard was mistaken. But now I realize that it seems true that (not A) implies (if A then B). But that turns out to not be relevant to the issue of the sameness or differentness of the 2 Pij definitions. Merrill likely intentionally chose his wording to avoid the logical unaesthetics & contradiction that Richard described when there's no tie. But, as I said before, even had he worded it the way Richard assumed, they would have resulted in the same Approval strategy. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
