@jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world • 3 months agoDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.comexternal-linkmessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1145arrow-down15
arrow-up1140arrow-down1external-linkDoes “and” really mean “and”? Not always, the Supreme Court rules.www.motherjones.com@jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world • 3 months agomessage-square49fedilink
minus-square@SuckMyWang@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink21•3 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-square@AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.sociallinkfedilink12•3 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.