This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.
randomaccount43543, 1 month ago to politics in Will You Accept the Election Results? Republicans Dodge the Question. The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans
The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans
randomaccount43543, 2 months ago to politics in Why doesn't the concept of national debt apply on a smaller level to individual cities? Wat
Wat
randomaccount43543, 2 months ago to politics in Does “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules. 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)
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 (not B) and (not C)
randomaccount43543, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to politics in Does “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules. 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.
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.