NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 147790" data-attributes="member: 2013">Check your logic again...To but this bluntly, that is a false statement.  Double move is "a special standard action."  The general case is "standard action."  Under this category falls the specific case (among others) of "double move action."  Double Move action is to Standard Action as Square is to Rectangle.  It is a specific case that is a subset of the generalized case. True, but this is NOT a general case - it is the specific case of Double Move under the general umbrella of Standard Actions.  The relevant comparison in this case has nothing to do with the word "All" and everything to do with "Double Move" and "Standard Action."You show a horribly poor understanding of "specific case" and "general case" if you believe that putting the word "all" somewhere automatically makes the entire statement (including the conditional) unilaterally into general case.I can invoke Accident Dicto Simpliciter the moment you step from All Double Moves are "special standard actions" to Double Move = Standard Action (by your own admission, equivalency must apply bilaterally).  "All Double Moves" is a SPECIFIC, not GENERAL case in this context because it is a subset of the general Case of "all standard actions."In order to claim equivalency, you cannot merely have "All Double Moves are Standard Actions," you must also have "All Standard Actions are Double Moves" (which you CLEARLY do not have).To use a mathematical analog to your argument (and perhaps this will show you the fallacy)... All squares are special subset of rectangles.All squares have a half-perimeter of L (L is side length) + L.All rectangles have a half-perimter of L (L is side length) + W (W is the length of the sides adjacent to sides L).These statements are 100% analogous to your first three assertions (all correct).The next statement (fallacious) that you make in your argument is that...Double Move = Standard Action, (flawed because even though a double move is a standard action, it is not necessarily true that a Standard Action is a double move).therefore MEA + MEA = MEA + PAtherefore MEA = PAtherefore I can substitute a PA for an MEA in a Standard Action.The mathematical analog is that...Squares = Rectangles, (obviously flawed, since it is not neccessarily true that Rectangles are squares)therefore L + L = L + Wtherefore L = Wtherefore I can substitute L for W in a rectangle.  (Clearly this is NOT necessarily the case).Clearly, the = descriptor is a misnomer because as you pointed out, equivalency has to work both ways... to say Double Move = Standard Action is not correct because Standard Action is not necessarily = to Double Move.You have gone from All Double Moves are Standard Actions to Double Moves = Standard Actions.  This move is Accident Dicto Simpliciter.  That you use "All" on the left side of all of your "equations" does not automatically make them into the general case.Equivalency says I should be able to reverse this, i.e., in text "All Double Moves are Standard Actions" must be able to become "All Standard Actions are Double Moves" and the "formula" is Standard Actions = Double Moves. In order to meaningfully compare Double Moves and Standard Actions in the way you propose to (equivalency), you must have the following statement:  All Standard Actions are Double Moves.  To state it another way, in order to state:Double Move = Standard ActionI must also be able to stateStandard Action = Double Moveor, in text, I must have BOTH of the following statements... (1) All Standard Actions are Double Moves(2) All Double Moves are Standard ActionsYou have only one, therefore you DO fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter.I have tried to state this in as many ways as I can, in hopes that at least one of them will be recognizable to you.The "proof against" case is supported by inferential arguments since as I have shown six ways to Sunday, your argument DOES fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter, therefore you have not shown an example that contradicts it and we can find no case in which MEA -> PA.  The statement "it is not the case that MEA -> PE" cannot be explicitly proven, but it can be inferred since no case exists in which MEA -> PA (your example is logically flawed and therefore does not disprove that statement).  I agree that it is impossible to *prove* the latter... but it is important to note that the inferential theory holds until disproven and thus far has not been disproven (BTW, your theory has been disproven on grounds of fallacious logic).Geez... let me revise the statement thusly... PA + PA -> Full-Round action.  I doubt you will argue with that since it is clearly the means by which a slowed character can perform a full-round action (i.e., casting a meta-magicked spell) even though it takes two actual rounds.  Specifically, since "starting a full-round action" is described as a PA in the rules, you cannot argue that the PA + PA -> Full-Round action rule exists, since it exists by definition.And as I'm sure you know, PA + PA -> Full-round action does NOT imply that Full-round action -> PA + PA.I agree with you on MANY other points, but in this instance you are wrong (you are wrong in your argument and you are wrong that you did not fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter) so please swallow your pride and admit it.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification