| Mike McGann on Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:01:14 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation |
On Dec 1, 2007 9:45 AM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd say that "not prohibited or regulated" means ~<PvR>, which, by De Morgan's Law, is equivalent to <~P^~R>, meaning "neither prohibited nor regulated." De Morgan's Law would make that "not prohibited and not regulated" if the or is non-exclusive. I think it would be easy enough to argue that the or is non-exclusive in this case. "X cannot do Y" means that X is prohibited to do Y. "X can do Y " means that X is allowed to do Y. "X can do Y if Z is true" means that X's ability to do Y is regulated by the condition of Z. What I could never understand in the whole debate of this was how something gains a magical "regulated" property just by describing it. If there is a rule "There is an object called a washing machine", it is now "regulated" but regulated in what way? - Hose _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss