User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account's road to recovery's road to recovery

Posted Oct 10, 2011 3:27 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (guest, #1159)
In reply to:'s road to recovery by mpr22
Parent article:'s road to recovery

> People who don't grasp that "P implies Q" does not mean "not-Q implies not-P".

If P does imply Q, then not-Q really does imply not-P. Did you instead mean that it doesn't follow that "not-P implies not-Q"?

That would make more sense in this case since "commits marked with a CVE number fix security vulnerabilities" does not imply that "commits without a CVS number do not fix security vulnerabilities".

(Log in to post comments)'s road to recovery

Posted Oct 10, 2011 4:44 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Presumably he meant "P implies Q" is not the same as "not P implies not Q."'s road to recovery

Posted Oct 10, 2011 9:24 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

Yes, typo.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds