Subscription pricing
So, I'm a little confused about the inclusive "or". As an example, let's say that we have this statement: "Either John or Tom will attend the meeting". Translate that into lawgic and it becomes: "/J --> T" and "/T --> J".
What I don't understand is that the if the above lawgic is correct, how is this statement an inclusive or. If John attends, Tom won't attend and vice versa. But, as per the statement, we can easily see that they both can attend (statement doesn't say "but not both").
Can anyone shed some light on this. It could be (probably is) that my understanding of this concept is flawed.
Thank you!
0
2 comments
D'oh. Silly mistake. Thanks @974!
If John attends, Tom won't attend and vice versa.
Your problem is that this is a false translation of /J --> T and its contrapositive. The above statement I quoted from you is a not both relationship and is written as such: J --> /T
If you have /T --> J and you say that John is attending then you affirm the necessary and the rule falls away so T is free to do whatever they want. This is covered more specifically in a later lesson: http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/conditional-rules-trigger-v-irrelevant/