Siddimaula

shurka1980 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From what I understand semi-strong form includes
> weak form. So, if semi-strong is violated we can
> automatically conclude that weak form is also
> violated. The order of inclusion is:
> weak form < semi-strong < strong.


This is what I initially thought too, but then I take a look at the inclusion heirarchy... if strong form is violate, via the use of non-public information, then shouldn't that violate semi and weak as well? There is powerful evidence out there against strong form EMH.