The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

HannahC on March 5, 2019

No vs Not Both

For the the video explanation of "not both" statements, there were 3 possibilities: x --> not y y --> not x not x --> not y ... and 1 impossibility: x --> y Question: I would just like someone to confirm whether "not x --> not y" is or is not a relevant application/ rule for the regular "no" statements. Thanks!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi on March 12, 2019


Great question.

It sounds like you might be overthinking it a bit. Not X - >Not Y is a
regular application for the 'no' statement in the sense that the
necessary term is negated. Don't worry too much about thinking about
whether it fits into a particular application/rule; rather, focus on
developing an intuitive understanding of what "not both" means. "Not
both" means you can't have both.

X - >/Y
Y - >/X
/X - >/Y

The reason /X - >/Y is possible is because having a rule where you
can't have both doesn't preclude you from not having either. As long
as you don't have at least 1, then you're good because you're
satisfying "not both."

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

HannahC on March 20, 2019

ok thank you!