jeffw@lemmy.worldcake to politics @lemmy.world · 3 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up1135arrow-down13
arrow-up1132arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comjeffw@lemmy.worldcake to politics @lemmy.world · 3 months agomessage-square46fedilink
minus-squareCarlcarla@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·3 months agoWouldn’t (3) E = (!A) and B and C also be a valid Interpretation?
minus-squareaalvare2@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-23 months agoThat’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.
Wouldn’t
(3) E = (!A) and B and C
also be a valid Interpretation?
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.