When Lurking, can you "charge" now?

[acmemyst]

I'll be damned.

Working somewhat more precisely from that definition we've been quoting, here's what I get.

"... Thus, this form implies “if not P, then Q” –
and “if P, not-then Q”, though possibly (in some cases) also “if P, then not Q”. "

Let P=Fleet, Q=not Charge. We find, under Onslaught,

if not Fleet, then not Charge, and, (if fleet, not-then not charge, or, if fleet, then not not charge).

1. (~F -> ~C) ^ (~(F -> ~C) v (F -> ~~C)) (Translation/assumption)
2. F (Assumption)
3. (~F -> ~C) ^ (~(~F v ~C) v (F -> ~~C)) (Rewrite implication)
4. (~F -> ~C) ^ ((~~F ^ ~~C) v (F -> ~~C)) (DeMorgan)
5. (~F -> ~C) ^ ((F ^ C) v (F -> C)) (double negations)
6. (F ^ C) v (F -> C) (Disconnect conjuncts)
7. C (2, 6)

Well, (please do not swear). Coredump, do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong here?

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 17:31:09 GMT nurglitch said:

coredump:

Why, your exegesis, premises, and conclusion are wrong. And that's why we're having this discussion.

So, your job should be easy then:

Is the following true or false?

Under the effects of Onslaught:
Not Charge unless Fleet.

If false,why?

If true, then is the following true or false?
'Not Charge unless Fleet' does mean that 'you can't charge, if you don't have fleet'...right?

Not Charge if Not Fleet


If false, why?

If true then is the following true or false?

If Not Fleet, then Not Charge

If false, why?

[nurglitch]

Do I also have to use haiku?

[coredump]

A unit under the effect of onslaught may not assault unless it also has the fleet ability.

A car under with no engine may not go 200mph unless it also has tires.


If fleet lets you always assault, then tires let you always go 200mph. Why or why not?

[nurglitch]

Fleet alone doesn't
allow units to assault.
That's 5th edition.

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 17:27:37 GMT nurglitch said:

So, following the expert, Avi Sion, there are three possible interpretations of "may not...unless" in the Onslaught sentence:

That is not what he said. He gave two equivalent expressions, that *always* apply, and then gave a third that could possibly apply in some situations.

Avi says: "Thus, the form “Unless P, Q” means that if P is absent (or false), Q is surely present (or true), though it does not really tell us whether in the presence of P, Q is necessarily or just possibly absent. Thus, this form implies “if not P, then Q” – and “if P, not-then Q”, though possibly (in some cases) also “if P, then not Q”."

So, lets look at this: Obviously P=Fleet, and Q= NoCharge

So the first form he gives is:
"if not P, then Q"
If not Fleet, then NoCharge.

Further:
"if P, not-then Q"
If Fleet, not-then NoCharge (thus stating that if there is fleet, we are told nothing about NoCharge. this is very different than saying 'Then not NoCharge')


Important to note: These two are equivalent arguments, if one is true, they are both true. They are not two 'options'

These two statements are *exactly* what I have been saying since the beginning, and even the 'famous Avi Sion' apparently agrees.)

The third form will "possibly" apply in "some cases", but that will depend on if the causation is complete or partial. Thus we can't just assume the third form applies.
As he puts it (from above) "it does not really tell us whether in the presence of P, Q is necessarily or just possibly absent." Only if it is "necessarily absent" does the third form apply.


So, from Avi, we have

If not Fleet, then NoCharge

Sounds good to me....

1. If a unit is Fleet, then it may not charge.
2. If a unit is not Fleet, then it may not charge.
3. If a unit is Fleet, then it may not-charge.

Of these, #2 seems to be the favoured interpretation of coredump and yourself.

It isn't my 'favorite', it is an equivalent statement, as verified by Avi.

Further. he never states 1 or 3 as possibilities nor equivalencies. Not sure where they came from.

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 19:04:38 GMT nurglitch said:

Do I also have to use haiku?

The fact that you are completely unwilling and unable to answer the questions says as much as your need for a flippant answer to hide your inability.

You talk a bit game about 'trying to find an answer' yet go to extremes to avoid questions that show how you are wrong. Convenient.

Fleet alone doesn't
allow units to assault.
That's 5th edition.

Again, instead of answering a question, you run and hide from it.

Try this one..
If fleet and Onslaught lets you always assault, then tires and no engine let you always go 200mph. Why or why not?

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 18:27:53 GMT acmemyst said:

if not Fleet, then not Charge, and, (if fleet, not-then not charge, or, if fleet, then not not charge).

Well, (please do not swear). Coredump, do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong here?

There is the problem

"not-then NoCharge" is not equivalent to "then not NoCharge"

The first is saying: you can't say "then no charge"
the second is saying: "then Charge"

[acmemyst]

Yes, I realize this.. Which is why I translated "not-then NoCharge" into
~(F -> ~C)

I also translated the second, optional, part into
OR (F -> ~~C)

Which gives the full translation I've used above..

[carnogaunt]

This logic stuff is interesting, although I can't say I understand a lot of it (I start a class in August).

But I think it's a lot of over-thought. Here is what we know about Onslaught:

It allows a unit to Run AND Shoot.
It forbids a unit to Charge, except when it has Fleet.

But the key is, it does not specifically allow the combination of Run AND Charge.

If you cast Onslaught on a unit of Termagants, your options are:
do nothing
Run
Shoot
Run AND Shoot

If you cast Onsalught on a unit of Genestealers, your options are:
do nothing
Run
Shoot
Run AND Shoot
Shoot AND Charge
Charge

[acmemyst]

Jul 12, 2012 21:07:47 GMT carnogaunt said:

But the key is, it does not specifically allow the combination of Run AND Charge.

Well, this sort of seems to be the entire point of contention. In particular, for cases where the unit under question also has Fleet.

I am currently under the impression that, due to the exact wording of the rule, it does allow you to Run and Charge, if (and only if) the unit also has Fleet. I'll have to wait for a more comprehensive reply from someone to my earlier translation, but I really do think it captures the whole of the definition of "unless" we've been using.

Having said that, it might be somewhat difficult to convince an opponent that this is correct, given that it does take a fair bit of symbol juggling to reach that conclusion.

[nurglitch]

Which is why I'm planning on playing Onslaught as if it does not permit Fleet units under its effect to run and then charge: Whatever the rules say, if it isn't clear to people on forums, what chance do we have convincing anyone during a game?

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 20:34:46 GMT acmemyst said:

Yes, I realize this.. Which is why I translated "not-then NoCharge" into
~(F -> ~C)

But that isn't valid either. We don't know what F leads to, therefore we don't know what it doesn't lead to
(If F, then NoC) *may* be true, so you can't say
Not(If F, then NoC)

I also translated the second, optional, part into
OR (F -> ~~C)
.

As for the second/optional part. It is not optional. It is possible depending on other factors, which we cannot verify within this argument.


I am also not sure why you are bothering with all the extraneous parts.
As Avi states:
Unless P,Q
means the same as
If not P, then Q

it also means
If P, not-then Q

And it may possibly also mean "in some cases"
If P, then not Q

That is because (if not P, then Q) implies (If P, not-then Q)

(Unless P, Q) has the exact same Truth Table as (If not P, then Q). You don't need anything else in the argument.

[coredump]

Jul 12, 2012 21:42:38 GMT nurglitch said:

Whatever the rules say, if it isn't clear to people on forums, what chance do we have convincing anyone during a game?

About the same chance we have of you actually responding to any of the direct questions I have asked you.

[acmemyst]

Hmm, I think you might actually be correct.

The reason I included the apparently extraneous parts was because
I wanted to render the explication from that resource explicit.
However, I think you are right that ~(F -> ~C) was not a correct translation
of "if F not-then not C", for the reasons you mentioned. Incidentally, I now have no idea
how it should be translated to a formal form (or indeed, if such a translation would exist).

For the record, I have no idea who this Avi Sion guy is; like I said, quick Google search.
At the risk of introducing yet more strange resources, here's some lecture slides that
back up your translation:

www.rci.rutgers.edu/~amorgo/teaching/09s_201/files/lecture_07.pdf

So, going with that, the correct, full, translation would appear to be what we stated earlier, i.e.,

O -> (~F -> ~C)

and thus, that the rule indeed does not specify whether you can charge if you do have Fleet.

My apologies for complicating this argument even further.