Richard Clark wrote:
There is also the
amusing "mutually incoherent" redundancy.

Not my words, Richard - they are straight from Born and Wolf.
Do you really think Born and Wolf would engage in "redundancy"
if it were meaningless. Suggest that you learn the difference
between mutually inclusive and mutually exclusive.

Aside from these sophisms,
there is a conceptual, quixotic tilting at windmills in the phrase:
no effect on each other
as if waves ever affected each other (irrespective of coherence -
mutuality notwithstanding).

Coherent waves can and do affect each other. It's called
interference where the sum of the intensities is different
from the intensity of the sums. Incidentally, the intensity
of the sums is the mistake you made when you calculated
the reflection from non-reflective glass to be brighter
than the surface of the sun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com