@jeffw to politics • 8 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square49arrow-up1146arrow-down15
arrow-up1141arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.com@jeffw to politics • 8 months agomessage-square49
minus-square@randomaccount43543link5•edit-28 months agoNow thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong: It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that: not (A and B and C) is equal to (not A) or (not B) or (not C) — In this case: The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C) Which is the same as The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C) — Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that not (A and B and C) is equal to (not A) and (not B) and (not C)
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•8 months agoYou’re missing the grammatical point of a itemised list though. Writing abc is not condition 1, condition 2, and condition 3. Reads as the “not” distributing so as to create the full sentence(es) abc is not condition 1, abc is not condition 2, and abc is not condition 3. In other words, writing this as an itemised list makes it different from writing it as the sentence abc is not condition 1, condition 2 and condition 3.
Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:
It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that:
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
In this case:
The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)
Which is the same as
The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) and (not B) and (not C)
You’re missing the grammatical point of a itemised list though. Writing
Reads as the “not” distributing so as to create the full sentence(es)
In other words, writing this as an itemised list makes it different from writing it as the sentence