jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 7 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1146arrow-down15
arrow-up1141arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comjeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 7 months agomessage-square49fedilink
minus-squareZaktor@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-27 months ago If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR. When you move the “not” to the inner terms, as you did in this reformulation, it flips the ANDs and ORs. That’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B) not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)
When you move the “not” to the inner terms, as you did in this reformulation, it flips the ANDs and ORs. That’s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws