That's what I said A implies B does mean NOT B implies NOT A. This is correct. Moving on. Your proof of ab=ba is not correct. If a,b are matrices it is not true that ab=ba. For example it may not even be possible. Try a = [1 2] and b=[a b]T. Then ab is possible. But ba is not. Even if it were true that ab and ba were possible it is still not correct. Matrix multiplication is an example.
You might want to take a second look at your example of dog and cat. The significant word here is "imples." Your example of the cat and dog is outside the framework. Having a cat in no way implies anything about having a dog. I have a cat imples I have catfood. Therfore if I don't have catfood that imples I don't have a cat. Now I realize you may have no bucks for the catfood, but if it continues you will have no cat. So it is correct. -- George Hester "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "George Hester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > 9rvreb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9rvreb$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Nov 2001: > > > No. If X imples Y then NOT X implies NOT Y. That is the fallacy. > > Very commonly done and wrong! The accurate result should be NOT Y > > implies NOT X. There are others such as is it true that ab = ba ? > > ab = ba = a * b = b * a > > I have a cat. I have a dog. You have a cat. Do you have a dog? Just > because you have a cat does not mean you have a dog, and just because > you don't have a dog doesn't mean you don't have a cat. if X implies Y, > NOT X does not necessarily imply NOT Y. > > -- > ICQ: N/A (temporarily) > AIM: FlyersR1 9 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ = m
