This can happen only if they disagree on p. The Hamming distance between the two judgment sets \(K_1 = \{\neg p, q, \neg(p\land q)\}\) and \(K_{2} = \{p, q, (p\land q)\}\) is 2. It is the disagreement on p that implies the disagreement over \(p\land q\), so the distance should be just 1.
Because three other tumors were judged differently by two observers and the average of the two judgments was within the range of equivocal, they were subjected to a re-count: for two tumors, the second judgments also differed between two observers, being positive and equivocal respectively, but the average of the judgments of HER2/ CEP17 ratio exceeded 2.20, so they were finally judged positive.
Nothing had changed in the content of the Constitution during the years between those two judgments.
Or does it mark a genuine difference between these two judgments?
Discrepancies between the two reviewers' judgments were resolved by discussion and mutual consensus with other reviewer (RM).
If the web of belief integrates judgments of fact and of value, then there is no clear distinction between these two judgment types.
This all led up to a bikini contest between the two at Judgment Day, which Wilson won.
If there is any discrepancy between the three evaluators' judgments, a consensus decision will be reached after discussion.
A further large question concerns the relationship between the two types of judgments, in both medicine and common sense.
Fisher exact test showed no difference between the two groups in patient judgments (P = 0.565), showing that blinding was successful.
