|
View Poll Results: Would you? | |||
Yes | 68 | 94.44% | |
No | 4 | 5.56% | |
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting logic question
Please respond to this question (i am asking OOT and SMP):
Thanks, Barron |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
seems like "treat all head injuries" to me. am i missing something? have i had too many head injuries?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
How do you interpret this as #2?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
Isn't this just saying, "All head injuries are big enough to attend to?" I don't get the paradox, if that's what you're implying exists.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
obv this is #2 because it implies that all head injuries should be ignored, even the small ones.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
The implication is clear, but it should say "no head injury is too small to treat" or something like that. Even taken literally it wouldn't mean "ignore all head injuries", it would just mean that even if a head injury is really small you can still ignore it, which doesn't make any sense.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
No head injury is small enough to ignore.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
All head injuries are big enough to ignore
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
"no head injury is too small to ignore"
i'm reading it that head injuries should be ignored, and that even the smallest ones still should be ignored, right? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
Where's the poll option for this phrase makes no literal sense?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|