jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 9 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1147arrow-down15
arrow-up1142arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comjeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 9 months agomessage-square49fedilink
minus-squareSuckMyWang@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up22arrow-down1·9 months agoI don’t think that’s right (imo). And does not mean or. And has additional connotations where or is either or. A and B and C equals A+B+C. This does not equal A or B or C which is what the Supreme Court is trying to argue is true, which it’s not.
minus-squareAnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up15arrow-down3·9 months agoIn Boolean algebraic notation A+B+C literally means A OR B OR C. I’m aware this isn’t a useful comment with regard to your original point, I just thought the coincidence was too funny to not point out.
I don’t think that’s right (imo). And does not mean or. And has additional connotations where or is either or. A and B and C equals A+B+C. This does not equal A or B or C which is what the Supreme Court is trying to argue is true, which it’s not.
In Boolean algebraic notation A+B+C literally means A OR B OR C.
I’m aware this isn’t a useful comment with regard to your original point, I just thought the coincidence was too funny to not point out.