@KevinLin I think I get it.

Putting the negation in the Necessary condition, (If A -> /B or If B -> /A) means: if you kill A then you MUST NOT kill B.

Meaning you dont have to kill A, but if you do, then you must not Kill B.

Here, you can leave both alive / not kill at all.

VERSUS:

Putting the negation in the Sufficient condition (If /A -> B or If /B -> A) means: If you dont kill A, then you must kill B.

Meaning, you must kill one or the other.

Somebody's gotta die.

And the 'Must' here is not an indicator, tied to bran or rob, its describing a necessity for 'being joeffrey'. in this case, to be joeffrey, he must kill one or the other, someones gotta die.

Let me know if im understanding it correctly now.

Q2 Sentence #1:

Is 'must' not a necessary condition? if it is, wouldn't Bran (idea immediately following the indicator) be the necessary condition (group 2), aka appearing after the arrow? meaning:

R -> /B or B -> /R

Why is the explanation showing:

/R -> B or /B -> R

(I know it seems identical, but its not, the negations are flipped. one allows you to connect to the chain the other does not. Im struggling to understand why we chose this order, the video doesn't explain this well.)

it literally says 'my objection to teaching chess'. That feels like sklar is explicitly stating what the disagreement is about.

Is that right or wrong to take that as explicitly pointing to what the disagreement is about??

DOLPHINS ARE MAMALS #DOLPHINSLIVESMATTER