randomaccount43543

@randomaccount43543@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

randomaccount43543,

The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans

Why doesn't the concept of national debt apply on a smaller level to individual cities?

So the gist of national debt in my understanding is Nation A asks for aid of some kind from (or commits unintentional damages to) Nation B who later on deems Nation A owes them based on their interpretation of the ordeal, with varying layers of complexity....

randomaccount43543,

Wat

randomaccount43543, (edited )

Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!

lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief

The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:

If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.

randomaccount43543,

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 (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)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • fightinggames
  • All magazines
    •