• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

    When you move the “not” to the inner terms, as you did in this reformulation, it flips the ANDs and ORs. That’s expected. The original, with the “not” on the outside, has the and/or flip in the majority interpretation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws

    • not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)
    • not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)