How do you y'all visually represent exceptions to condition statements in our "lawgic" language?

TheDeterminedC

A will go to B except when C happens.

Maybe it can be done conditionally, I'm not sure. I've been thinking about writing C as a sufficient (either positive or negated), but I realized that except is saying something totally different then our typical conditional "lawgic." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's saying that when it's satisfied, the rule is irrelevant and when it's negated, nothing happens----the rule still stands while also not triggering anything. This is polar opposite of the way our conditionals are understood. So I was thinking it ought be represented in a special way.

J.Y. used the diagram method, but it doesn't really sit well with my style of understanding. I was wondering what others do.

Thanks!

NotMyName

A happens except when B occurs

/A -> B

AngusMcGillis

I personally use /C -> (A->B)

I can't remember which quesiton it is, but JY uses a circle method which I transcribed here

TheDeterminedC

That makes sense for A and B. How would you write it with the example I gave at the top of the post?

TheDeterminedC

@AngusMcGillis I think I am on that question! PT81 S3 19. Seeing that your description matched mine helps. I might have found a way to use DeMorgan's law to represent it but I'm still working on that. Although I can just put aside learning preference and run with this idea. Thanks!!

TheDeterminedC

Stumbling across this post 5 months later, I realized I now have a solid grasp on how except/unless statements work and I can answer my own question

To the unsure me of the past, except/unless logical indicators basically work like normal conditionals but they just add in one tiny world to the condition.

A ---> B except C means that A will always imply B, but there is one instance where this is not true. In the instance where A happens and B does not (A and /B) then C will happen. It's that simple.

DeMorgan's law is a proof:
A ---> B, expect when C
not (A ---> B ) ---> C
A and /B ---> C

Michael.Cinco

I try to think of it as A AND NOT C --> B

Exceptions make more sense to me from that perspective because you take into account the exception and the sufficient condition to trigger the necessary. In order to trigger the neccessary with the sufficient condition you need the exception not to be valid. Which is what A and Not C show.

jmarmaduke96

@TheDeterminedC I ran into this problem on a PT a week or so ago, so I'm glad I found this post. I generally just treat "except" as "unless" or in other words "if not". "If A then B, except when C" So that becomes "If not C, then the combined necessary condition (A --> " Is that a reasonable approximation? or am I doing it wrong?

TheDeterminedC

@jmarmaduke96, it sounds like a great way of viewing this problem and it's quite similar to @"Michael.Cinco's way of thinking as well. Just make sure that you know when we don't have C, that doesn't necessarily imply A.