The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express
HannahCon 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!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
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!
