On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > [JM wrote] [&BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution] > > ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in > to make it obvious who I'm responding to.

Since your software is bad, you should add it manually. > > It is obvious that p(Y1&X) = p(Y1&Z), because in all instances in > > It is not obvious, for the same reason that p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&X) is not obvious. > If QTI is true, then it is clearly not true. Don't assume what you're > trying to prove. Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. I am discussing the ASSA, not trying to prove it but to show that it is self consistent. You are right in the sense that I left something out. I am assuming a reasonable measure distribution based on the physical situation. For example, the measure could be proprtional to the number of implementations of a computation, as I like to assume. It is also possible to assume an unreasonable measure distribution, like the RSSA. This of course would require new, strange and complicated laws of psycho-physics. So what I am really doing is showing that (ASSA + reasonable measure (RM)) is self consistent. However, the way we have been using the term ASSA, RM has almost always been assumed. In any case it is always true that some way of calculating the measure distribution is needed. Your claim was that the RSSA is needed. My example shows that RM does the job. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/