Yes. Sometimes the two overlap. You can think about it this way: if you want to buy a lollipop that costs $50, having $49 in your wallet is necessary, but not sufficient. Having $50 will be necessary AND sufficient. Having $51 will be sufficient, but no longer necessary. Something like that.
Yes, its called a bi-conditional. They are covered in the "advanced logic" portion of the syllabus. An example would be "A if and only if B," or A(---)B.
8 comments
Yes- and saying that something is "necessary and sufficient" is exactly the same as saying something is "sufficient and necessary"
Yes. Sometimes the two overlap. You can think about it this way: if you want to buy a lollipop that costs $50, having $49 in your wallet is necessary, but not sufficient. Having $50 will be necessary AND sufficient. Having $51 will be sufficient, but no longer necessary. Something like that.
@joncampbell04301 said:
Yes- and saying that something is "necessary and sufficient" is exactly the same as saying something is "sufficient and necessary"
A certain philosopher on PT 69 would like to have a word about this!
@joncampbell04301 said:
Yes- and saying that something is "necessary and sufficient" is exactly the same as saying something is "sufficient and necessary"
I think this sufficiently answers the question but it might not necessarily go into enough detail :)
(Honestly just wanted to play with the words - I think it's a great answer)
Yes, its called a bi-conditional. They are covered in the "advanced logic" portion of the syllabus. An example would be "A if and only if B," or A(---)B.
Short answer, yes--sometimes.
I suppose a sufficient assumption can be a necessary assumption if that sufficiency is singular (no other sufficiency exists).
Necessary can be sufficient, but I don’t think a sufficient can be necessary. I’d love to hear others thoughts on this though.