>>Based on the accepted nature of the first statement, and on the processes of
>>logic (this would be associative? communicative? inductive? deductive?); I
>>would have to say that the second statement is true--at least in theory.
>If all D have an A, then all A have a D? I think there might be something
>wrong with your logic.
>David McFadzean
What I was saying was that there is a relationship between D and A so there
is a relationship between A and D. If this relationship is "to have" (as in
ancesters "have" descendents) then no matter which way we state variables,
the relationship remains in a form of it's original (A has D, D has A, D
does not have A...the relationship is a form of has/has not). If ALL
decendents have a common ancester, then all ancesters have something in
common with any one descendent). The stipulations given were "all" and
"one". How does placing the "all" with the A's and "one" with D's affect
the relationship to have/to have not? Seems if the first is true, then a
variation of the second must be true or the relationship is not valid.
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
According to the latest official figures,
43% of all statistics are totally worthless.