Board Game Arena

Hello!
I'm trying to improve my deductive skills with the Turing machine, and I've been reviewing the logic that some follow in this forum.
I understand that a validator cannot be redundant, but I played a game at table number 472074965 and found that validator D checks if yellow is greater than or equal to blue or purple, and validator F checks if yellow is greater than blue or purple
This doesn't add up for me because if I confirm F, then D becomes unnecessary (if it's greater, then it fulfills the condition of being greater or equal). My deduction was that if one validator says it's greater or equal and the other says it's greater, it's because yellow is equal to blue or purple.

However, it turned out not to be the case.

Can you help me understand where my mistake is?

Thank you

https://boardgamearena.com/archive/repl ... s=84207926;

Those two are tricky.
If you are right then D tell you that y>=bp, and F tell you per example that y>b.

And one doesn't lead to the other:
- if y>=bp, then it's possible that all three are identical. If you add y>b then it's not the case anymore
- if y>b then you got no information about purple. Adding y>=bp you got the information y>=p

I see! Understood!
I'm trying to emulate the masters and attempting to save myself some questions by identifying which ones might be redundant with each other, but for now, I'm not doing very well with this