Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
JR -- In strict logic rules, the word "or" doesn't mean both, it means one only is good enough. "If you have a red coat, or green boots, you may enter the building" means that both people with red coat but no green boots, and people with no red coat but green boots will be in there.
|
Not that it's all that relevant to the overall discussion, but in formal logic, "or" means "at least one" which implies "possibly both". So in your example Juulie, people with a red coat and green boots would also be admitted.
|
Formally, you are correct, but for efficiency's sake, any process put in place to analyze an OR situation would only look for one of the various options. In other words, as soon as you see the red coat, there's no need to look for green boots. He's in.
I'm a software engineer....I can't help myself. The geek in me just comes out. 
|
Actually what Juulie is describing is an *exclusive* or: A or B is true but not both A & B are true.
|
No, I'm not. Chuck got it right, it COULD be both, but it doesn't HAVE to be. The defender COULD prevent both the shot and the pass, but he doens't have to prevent both. If he prevents only one of the two, it's still a held ball.
And btw, what's Dan doing in San Jose?!?