Is this rule bi-conditional?

Comments

• 1 Like

  BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  November 2016 8716 karma

  No. As written, the rule is not biconditional. If C is before D, the rule tells us nothing about the placement of A and B. Lets look into this a bit deeper as it would apply to a sequencing game: lets pretend we have 4 spots. Numbered 1-4. Let make A before B. That forces C before D.
  In each of the below instances we have the fulfillment of the sufficient condition:
  
  
  Now lets fulfill the necessary condition as the rule is written, that means we put C before
  
  
  
  Here we have a valid arrangement in which C is before D yet B is before A. This would not be a valid arrangement if this was a biconditional. In a true biconditional, if C was before D, the worlds above the black line would not be valid.
  
  
  Our final point here is that the rule as written lacks the traditional biconditional language. Something like A is before B if and only if C is before D. Take that "If and only if" apart and you have 2 conditionals. If signifying sufficient and "only if" signifying necessity.
• Tina Cho Free Trial Member

  November 2016 442 karma

  @BinghamtonDave
  Ah, I see! Thank you a lot Dave
  
• 2 Likes

  Alex Alum Member ⭐

  November 2016 23929 karma

  @BinghamtonDave coming in clutch with the written out explanation! You Da man!