Posted by Joel Shepherd on 02/01/56 11:51

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Joel Shepherd wrote:
>
> > "Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>" <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please don't confuse validity and well-formedness.

Okay, and thank you, Andy, for not taking advantage of several
opportunities to help clear up that confusion.

> > but I believe it's reasonable to say
>
> The definitions of validity and well-formedness are not a matter of
> "belief".

If you were to parse that phrase carefully, you would see that there is
no such implication.

Now that you've corrected me, how about putting some digits back on the
keyboard, and clearing up the OP's confusion as well. You are more
qualified to do so, and it's a shame to withhold knowledge and
understanding that you are fortunate enough to have acquired.

--
Joel.

[Back to original message]