• Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 年前

    Gotcha. I was reading it aloud: “It’s an Apple if and only if it’s a fruit.” which isn’t wrong, but I guess the technical definition of “If and only if” assumes more than the words imply.

    • hornface@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 年前

      “if and only if” is an unusual and sometimes confusing way to say it, but the words do directly imply the technical definition.

      “it’s an apple if and only if it’s a fruit” literally means “it’s an apple if it’s a fruit” and “it’s an apple only if it’s a fruit”. You already seem to understand the 2nd part, so no need to explain that.

      The first part is a bit confusing because the words are in the reverse order compared to how people normally talk. “it’s an apple if it’s a fruit” means the same thing as “if it’s a fruit, then it’s an apple”. Clearly “if it’s a fruit, then it’s an apple” is not a true statement, because there are plenty of other fruits apart from apples.

    • Boinkage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 年前

      I agree, if and only if trips me up too and it doesn’t fit perfectly into this logic formula. A thing is only an apple if and only if it is a fruit makes sense if you read it in a common sense way.