X would not had not Y Lawgic Translation

CRLSUUUU · February 2019

Hey all,

Does anyone know how to translate this using the group 3/4 rules?

Earth's temperature would not rise had not fossil fuels been burned.

I just have no idea how to apply the rules here, if someone could explain what the translation is and why and which rules they used, that'd be much appreciated!

LastTime · February 2019

Earth's temperature would not rise if fossil fuels had not been burned.
ETR:Earth's temperature
FFB: fossil fuels
\FFB --> \ETR is equivalent to ERT --> FFB

Hope this helps!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Related Discussions

X would not had not Y Lawgic Translation

Can anyone tell me the difference, if any, of NO x is y versus x is NOT y?Tell me if I am translating them into lawgic properly: No x is y = x ---->/y X is not y = x ------>/y Are they the same or are they differen…

Translation Question: Not All X are YNot all X are Y. Is this translated as X some (not)Y? Also, is Not all X are Y equivalent to X some Y? For the latter question, I know in English in…

no X builds Y but not ZHow would you guys diagram this statement?

To Lawgic or not to LawgicThat is the question. I have found that JY will sometimes ignore logical indicator language in a stimulus (always, the only, unless, etc...) for no r…

is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?

Comments