jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 6 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square40fedilinkarrow-up1121arrow-down12
arrow-up1119arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comjeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 6 months agomessage-square40fedilink
minus-squarerandomaccount43543@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down2·edit-26 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)
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)