Embedded conditional translation

Comments

• Sheri123 Alum Member

  November 2015 1196 karma

  Are you trying to say some A are B, but A is not C?
• 1 Like

  Accounts Playable Live Sage ⭐

  November 2015 edited November 2015 3107 karma

  @Sheri123
  
  I missed some parentheses. The conditional should be A--->[Not(B--->C)]. You can distribute the "not" in the necessary condition as B SOME Not C, which gets you A--->(B Some Not C). So if there is an A, then there are some Bs that aren't Cs. My question is whether or not this is the most effective translation using lawgic notation.
  
  ADDITION: The more I think about it, the contrapositive might be easier to see. (No Bs are Not Cs)--->Not A. This would be (B--->C)--->Not A. Does this imply B--->C--->Not A? (The parentheses drop away?)
• Sheri123 Alum Member

  November 2015 1196 karma

  Do you mean?
  A---->B
  B some /C
  Negation of some is none, and negation of all is some not. So for example some A are not B would be A some /B.
  I apologize if I am misunderstanding your question. There are probably some mentors or sages that could provide better guidance.
• Accounts Playable Live Sage ⭐

  November 2015 3107 karma

  @Sheri123
  
  Not quite. I'm referring back to the lessons talked about here: http://7sage.com/lesson/mastery-embedded-conditional/
  
  The necessary condition itself is a conditional statement, so A--->B SOME Not C is a different idea than A--->(B SOME Not C). Specifically, the entirety of the SOME statement is contingent on the relationship to A instead of being a discrete relationship between B and C.
• nye8870 Alum ⭐

  November 2015 1749 karma

  @"Accounts Playable" I like A --> (B some /C)