https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-andor-in-necessary-conditions/
I'm having trouble understanding this lesson.
A--> B or C
Why can't "OR" in the necessary mean both? unless otherwise indicated as "not both"
Since its a necessary condition would it not mean that it is necessary for one of them to happen/be triggered but could it not also be the case that B and C happen?
A--> B and C
Similarly for "AND"
I don't understand why AND can split the arrow... if A --> B and C... doesn't this mean that it is necessary for both B AND C to be triggered? Because the contrapositive means if not B or not C then not A... If we say A --> B and A--> C are we saying that one of them could happen without the other and the statement will still be true.. but if this was the case why can't we say or?
@ Zubair Thank you, this helps!