3 ms·
Huh? The inversion (assuming it can happen) doesn't protect you... so I wouldn't call it "necessary". Edit Otherwise you end up with a nice contradiction: "ho
by black_puppydog 5y ago
Huh? The inversion (assuming it can happen) doesn't protect you... so I wouldn't call it "necessary".
Edit
Otherwise you end up with a nice contradiction: "how could this happen?! I was assuming it could happen, so it really shouldn't have!
- NikolaNovak 5y agothe inversion may be necessary but not sufficient condition. I don't think you've exposed a logic flaw in OP statement (we can still discuss whether we grant them the premise)