• @Carlcarla
    link
    49 months ago

    Wouldn’t

    (3) E = (!A) and B and C

    also be a valid Interpretation?

    • @aalvare2
      link
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s a reasonable interpretation of my simplified statement “a person is eligible if not (a), (b), and ©”, but I purposely kept my simplification all on 1 line to bring down the line count, which was futile in the end anyway :)

      A closer simplification to the exact text is:

      “A person is eligible if not:

      (a);

      (b); and

      ©”

      With formatting I think it’s fair to say “not” should apply to all 3 bullet points, but it’s unclear whether it applies before or after “and-ing” the 3 together.

      Edit: formatting. Idk if it’s just my lemmy client or if it’s markdown constraints, but if I only put 1 “newline” between successive statements then the newline is ignored and my entire point of putting different things on different lines making a difference is completely sabotaged :)