I don’t understand what you mean. Nothing contradicts the claim, if the claim is made properly, because the claim is a theorem and always holds when its preconditions do. (EDIT: I think you meant Rohin’s claim in the summary?)
I’d say that we can just remove the quoted portion and just explain “a1 and a2 lead to disjoint sets of future options”, which automatically rules out the self-loop case. (But maybe this is what you meant, ofer?)
I was referring to the claim being made in Rohin’s summary. (I no longer see counter examples after adding the assumption that “a1 and a2 lead to disjoint sets of future options”.)
I don’t understand what you mean. Nothing contradicts the claim, if the claim is made properly, because the claim is a theorem and always holds when its preconditions do. (EDIT: I think you meant Rohin’s claim in the summary?)
I’d say that we can just remove the quoted portion and just explain “a1 and a2 lead to disjoint sets of future options”, which automatically rules out the self-loop case. (But maybe this is what you meant, ofer?)
I was referring to the claim being made in Rohin’s summary. (I no longer see counter examples after adding the assumption that “a1 and a2 lead to disjoint sets of future options”.)