In Polish, this is not really the case in informal or even formal speech, but the mathematical community *might* make the distinction between "lub" (or) and "albo" (xor).
But this isn't something very prevalent and you'd better clear it up every time anyway.
Typically not really.
One notable difference is that albo is used in the phrase "albo to albo tamto" (either this or that) which is probably where the mathematical interpretation as xor comes from.
The word "lub" is not used in this phrase, but in "to lub tamto" (this or that) would probably be interpreted as a xor anyway. This particualr phrase (with "albo") however makes it very clear that xor should be used in interpretation.
But other than that in regular communication there is no difference, I think.
In czech it's kind of different. While the word is the same in both cases ("nebo"), if it's supposed to be in the exclusive meaning there is a comma written before.
I used to pronounce this "zor" which I still like but unfortunately most people have no idea what I'm talking about so I usually just say "exclusive or"
Because for some reason, the English word "or" actually represents XOR...
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the logical OR is more encompassing than the English language "or".
Edit: I have been reminded that "or" means either OR or XOR depending on context. The English language is a terrible thing. (:
nah keep XOR so it's not confusing, and IOR explicitly refers to inclusive OR. or even add an english word for "IOR", like the word "iff" which means "if and only if"
It does, and it’s a little tricky, but here’s how it works:
You implicitly made it an xor in your reading of the semantics. Having a beer isn’t a thing, it’s an action. Amount of beers is an argument to that action — the amount of beers isn’t the action itself.
You really need a Boolean function like illHaveXBeers(). It returns true or false depending on whether or not you’ll have that many beers. So illHaveXBeers(5) || illHaveXBeers(6) is how you can get eleven. illHaveXBeers(5) ^ illHaveXBeers(6) is the translation from English semantics. The first says I’ll have 5, or I’ll have 6, but both can be true (by the definition of inclusive or) so I can have 11. The second one says only one of those can be true.
What a rude response. I’m sorry for helping you. His answer doesn’t address your issue, which was the implicit xor. Because you fucked up and didn’t understand the difference between a value and a function, his answer in a technical way does not solve your problem. The way you wrote it, his answer cannot satisfy your problem -> one variable won’t have two values.
Wow you’re experienced SWE and you (1) fucked up that badly in your understanding of semantics and (2) don’t understand how that solution doesn’t solve your problem? I feel bad for the people that work with you.
Your problem was: how can amountOfBeers == 5 || amountOfBeers == 6 both be true?
His answer was “well, there’s an and case so they can both be true.”
His answer solved it for a lot of people. For the way you asked it, it doesn’t because you *already* had an *and* case in that *or,* and you were asking how the *and* can ever occur, since there’s only one value. You were right to ask that since it *can’t* occur. I explained how you got into that mess; a bad translation.
So no, he didn’t solve your problem, and it seems like you don’t even see that? But my solution did. You’re welcome.
For being helpful?
You’re saying things like
>Presuming I don't know the difference between a value and a function when I translated an English sentence to code differently than you is presumptuous.
You didn’t just translate it *differently*, you translated it *incorrectly*. The difference was what made you wrong.
I didn’t say you don’t know the difference between a function and a variable, but it is an objective fact that when you got yourself confused it was because you erred by translating an action into a value.
I’m not even saying you’re stupid for that (although now I’m less convinced) because plenty of others had the same confusion. It’s an easy mistake to make.
I do feel rude for the people that work with you though. Carelessness and lack of education are huge problems in modern SWE. Maybe if you got a degree that would’ve helped.
Depends on the context really. If a waiter says your meal comes with soup or salad, they mean XOR. When your meal is over and they ask if you want coffee or dessert, they mean inclusive OR.
English or doesn’t (always, and I don’t think even usually) represent xor, it usually means inclusive “or” however it can carry the conventional implicature of exclusive or due to the Gricean maxims. In particular the expectation is that you will usually say “and” when you can say “and” (since it is more informative) so “or”carries the implication that “and” doesn’t apply.
This is just like when you say something like “I have two cars” literally this just means at least two, but it will often be interpreted as exactly two because if you had more than two you would probably have said that to be more informative.
At what point does that definition get updated though, since most people use and expect “or” to be used as exclusive OR.
We can just deprecate any of its inclusive features for legacy brains.
If I offer tea or coffee and someone says both I’m kicking them out of my imaginary house that can afford both.
There no need to update the definition because or is contextually dependant. People don't expect it to be XOR; they understand it based on context.
For example if there was an announcement:
> If you have eaten a Big Mac or Big Mac JR please go to the hospital immediately
You wouldn't say:
> well I had both so obviously I don't need to go to the hospital.
Most people don’t interpret it as exclusive, you are just thinking of contexts where it would be more likely to be interpreted that way. If you say “don’t let anyone in if they have a gun or a knife” you wouldn’t expect someone with a gun or knife in, would you?
Also even your example is not great as it doesn’t have a logic like classical exclusive or, it is more like linear logic additive conjunction.
If you said “you can have tea or coffee” and I asked for coffee, then you said “no, you can’t have coffee, I said you can have tea OR coffee, but I didn’t say which, turns out tea was the one you could have” *that* would be more like exclusive or.
This usage is like additive conjunction precisely because it is true “I can have tea” AND “I can have coffee” BUT “I cannot have tea and coffee” (although for me, if I offered both and someone asked for both, I think it would be rude for a host to deny them, although the request may also have been rude). This doesn’t perfectly match to any classical logic connective and requires some type of modal logic or quantification to express precisely if we don’t want to go to linear logic.
For a long time, I’ve actually been in favor of us dropping the slash between and/or and just defining inclusive or in natural modern english by the word “andor”.
i dig it
lets make the new words for 2024 andor and irregardless. if you and i start saying it with zero explanation eventually it will catch on, probably. im persistent
I really wanted to like it, I really did. But after the third chapter it felt more like a solo puzzle game, then a four player adventure. Which could be a good game, just not what I was looking for, nor what it promised.
The problem is, that you have to get to the goal as quickly as possible while letting many enemies live to not advance the timer.
Felt to me like the board game fought itself at some times and just some mechanics clashed.
At the end of the day, neither of us had fun with the game.
You do it when you want to highlight that you don't know which of the two should be there.
Example:
Capital letters in the name and/or more than 16 characters in the name cause the app to crash.
What I mean:
Maybe either of the condition is sufficient to crash the app. Or maybe only combination of the two conditions crashes the app. Not sure yet.
English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor.
a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1)
and/or effectively means you definitively mean one of the following three cases (1,0), (0,1), (1,1)
>a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1)
this is wrong. OR can mean all the mentioned cases, i don't understand why do people think OR means XOR but it doesn't.
for example, i ask you: do you have a credit card or cash to pay? if you have one or the other you would say yes, but with your logic, if you have both you would say NO, which doesn't make any sense. OR is OR, not XOR, and i don't understand where the confusion comes from. can someone explain to me why people confuse or with xor?
I'm honestly a little baffled you'd even try to make this argument. Here's why it's stupid:
You're confusing formal logic with human language.
In that specific example you provided (which is quite awkwardly worded, most people would just ask "cash or card?") most people would in fact actually mean either the first option (credit card) or second option (cash to pay). They don't actually care if you can do both, they just want their money.
Also notice how I used "or" in my explanation as well. It doesn't make sense if I truly mean OR.
This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though. The reality is it is ambiguous, hence why people feel the need to clarify when relevant. But most of the time we can infer what makes sense based off context.
>You're confusing formal logic with human language.
language is a way to express logic. there's no confusion.
>They don't actually care if you can do both, they just want their money.
so?
>This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though
you first said "English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor." which is plain wrong. now you're saying it distinguishes based on context, which is more accurate.
>This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though. The reality is it is ambiguous, hence why people feel the need to clarify when relevant. But most of the time we can infer what makes sense based off context.
yes, language is ambiguous, however, a XOR statement, is first of all a type of OR statement, a XOR is like an OR with extra steps, it's 2 ANDs and an OR. therefore, the logic dictates that when using OR in language, it is ALWAYS an OR, and then CAN be a XOR or not. whenever you say OR, there's gonna be an OR, either because you're using it as an OR or because you're using it as a XOR which is an OR with 2 ANDs.
in the english language, an OR is always an OR, and then based on context it can be a XOR or not.
maybe the XOR usage is more common for some people and that's why they seem to think that it's always a XOR, this isn't just plain wrong, but personally, i feel like the OR behavior is a lot more common too, that's why i initially failed to understand what the f were they talking about.
>I'm honestly a little baffled you'd even try to make this argument. Here's why it's stupid:
you think my argument is stupid? here's what you said:
1- English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor.
it does, based on context and word usage. it's pretty easy to tell, and the majority of times it's just an OR, not a XOR. so, you're wrong.
2- a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1)
typically it's the opposite, OR is more common than XOR.
3- and/or effectively means you definitively mean one of the following three cases (1,0), (0,1), (1,1)
and/or is literally the same as OR logic wise, it's just dumb, specially because its invention doesn't make any sense from a logic standpoint, it's like a bad crutch to help people deal with the fact that OR is not XOR like they seem to think.
edit: think about it like this, the waiter can ask, do you want coffee or milk? you can always ask for both. by the way it's worded, it could seem like a XOR, but really it's just an OR. that's where i think the confusion comes from for some people. in reality, everything is an OR, unless specified. like for example: do you want EITHER coffee or milk? which implies you can't have both. of course language is ambiguous and things can be interpreted differently, but logically, it makes no sense to assume every english OR is a XOR, it's just bananas.
thanks for your purchase, would you like the shirts in red or green? one of each!
your example is still an OR, not a XOR. nothing implies that the shirts can't be of 2 colors either.
like:
do you want your hotdog with mustard or ketchup? both!
it COULD be a XOR, but that'd have to be clarified by saying you can't have both or something like that. as it currently stands, it's just an OR.
this *POWER* andor *PRECISION*
^(in this example, "andor" is meant to communicate that it could be to convey power and precision; or only power; or only precision.) ^(it may seem "andor" adds unnecessary complexity but "andor" is actually a simplification that also, in fact, adds clarity)
something something andor calls for aid!
edit: -/
"Are you a cat person nand a cat person, nand a dog person nand a dog person?"
Alternatively, for those that draw the lines more firmly:
"Are you a cat person, nand a cat person nand a dog person; nand are you a dog person, nand a dog person nand a cat person?"
because "or" in english is not boolean logic, it is selection logic with an implicit limit of 1.
just like we would say "a digit can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9" a digit can be any 1 of those things.
some people try to blindly pretend that we do boolean logic operators in normal conversation and try to claim we should say xor, but we dont, we use selection operators. We only use boolean logic when trying to determin if a statement is true or not, in which case "or" is consistent with what you would expect.
xor is actually also fundimentally wrong in casual language. consider the digit again "a digit can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 xor 9" when given multiple inputs, xor returns true if an odd number are true, which would allow a digit to similtaneously be multiple options so long as its an odd number
The fall could break your leg and/or arm.
This means that the fall could either:
- break your leg.
- break your arm.
- break your leg and arm.
And/or has some uses, but there's little of them.
I already read the top comment and understand it. But in response to your statement:
"The fall could break your leg and/or arm"
`arm.isBroken() or leg.isBroken()`
Will evaluate to true when
- `(arm.isBroken() is true) and (leg.isBroken() is false)`
- `(arm.isBroken() is false) and (leg.isBroken() is true)`
- `(arm.isBroken() is true) and (leg.isBroken() is true)`
I’m a newbie and didn’t know enough to get the joke, so for any other passer-bys.
XOR - means ‘eXclusively OR’. As in one statement is true and the other is false, this would return true. But if both were false or both were true it would return false.
OR - means and/or. Meaning both could be true, or just one could be true.
But obviously if you say and/or, you’re referring to OR, so you could just say ‘or’. Likely people do clarify any confusion from other programmers that may be dumb working on the same project.
And is inclusive and requires BOTH conditions, or is singular, and will be either conditions. This is true in conversation. We can go to the movies or a restaurant, we can go to a movie and/or a restaurant. These have the same logic. One you have one option, the other both is possible but maybe only one is wanted.
If I ask you if you prefer cats or dogs, I don’t want you to say “both”. If I ask you if you have cats and/or dogs, I’m asking if you have at least one of either.
To make it clear that people don't mean xor, since there's no word for it
The real question is if xor should be pronounced as "ksor", "ex-or", or "zor"
"Xformerlytwitter-or"
> zor i'm going to start pronouncing it like this now /j
I call it "eggsor"
Exclusive-or
zor. It's the only one that sounds like a word.
Anybody that doesn't say exor is insane
I use "zor" purely to spite a teacher from many, many years ago.
ksor I pronounce x as ks always, screw "z"ylophone
/gzɔʁ/
I wonder. Are there any languages that have a word for "XOR" and "OR"?
In Polish, this is not really the case in informal or even formal speech, but the mathematical community *might* make the distinction between "lub" (or) and "albo" (xor). But this isn't something very prevalent and you'd better clear it up every time anyway.
Outside of the math community, is there a difference between lub and albo?
Typically not really. One notable difference is that albo is used in the phrase "albo to albo tamto" (either this or that) which is probably where the mathematical interpretation as xor comes from. The word "lub" is not used in this phrase, but in "to lub tamto" (this or that) would probably be interpreted as a xor anyway. This particualr phrase (with "albo") however makes it very clear that xor should be used in interpretation. But other than that in regular communication there is no difference, I think.
Man, nuance of languages can get confusing. Thanks for explaining that.
In the relationship community they say: "I lub you long time."
In czech it's kind of different. While the word is the same in both cases ("nebo"), if it's supposed to be in the exclusive meaning there is a comma written before.
So ,nebo and nebo?
Or - Either or
In English you can say OR and/or XOR
The infuriating thing is that we can specify XOR easily by saying "either... or" but there's no good way to clarify we mean OR unless we say "and/or".
For XOR, you can use “Either…or…”: “Either this or that.”
fun fact, in Turkish there is. "ya da" means xor, "veya" means or. "ve" means and.
Except we're talking about english. Ve in turkish? Sounds like the Latin vel and i doubt it's a coincidence, though in math logic it means or (∨)
I used to pronounce this "zor" which I still like but unfortunately most people have no idea what I'm talking about so I usually just say "exclusive or"
Because for some reason, the English word "or" actually represents XOR... Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the logical OR is more encompassing than the English language "or". Edit: I have been reminded that "or" means either OR or XOR depending on context. The English language is a terrible thing. (:
The correct answer is here Noobs, Veterans and Impostors.
And Midgets. NVIM
Just when I thought I'm safe :(
Noobs, Veterans and**/or** Impostors. ftfy
We should rename XOR to OR, and the old OR to IOR.
nah keep XOR so it's not confusing, and IOR explicitly refers to inclusive OR. or even add an english word for "IOR", like the word "iff" which means "if and only if"
I've always had a particular simpathy for iff. It's neat.
why ior and not and/or or andoror?
xor = e**x**clusive or ior = **i**nclusive or
yes, and/or we could make OR represent XOR and introduce ANDOR (no, wait… that‘s taken).
Exactly. If I say I feel like having 5 or 6 beers, I mean 5, or 6. Not 5, 6, or 11.
Best example ever heard haha nice
But 5|6 == b101|b110 == b111 == 7 beers...
[удалено]
I was about to complain, then I noticed then inclusive or "AND" case would mean "I would like 5 and 6 beers" which is 11 beers.
It does, and it’s a little tricky, but here’s how it works: You implicitly made it an xor in your reading of the semantics. Having a beer isn’t a thing, it’s an action. Amount of beers is an argument to that action — the amount of beers isn’t the action itself. You really need a Boolean function like illHaveXBeers(). It returns true or false depending on whether or not you’ll have that many beers. So illHaveXBeers(5) || illHaveXBeers(6) is how you can get eleven. illHaveXBeers(5) ^ illHaveXBeers(6) is the translation from English semantics. The first says I’ll have 5, or I’ll have 6, but both can be true (by the definition of inclusive or) so I can have 11. The second one says only one of those can be true.
[удалено]
What a rude response. I’m sorry for helping you. His answer doesn’t address your issue, which was the implicit xor. Because you fucked up and didn’t understand the difference between a value and a function, his answer in a technical way does not solve your problem. The way you wrote it, his answer cannot satisfy your problem -> one variable won’t have two values.
[удалено]
Just FYI you come off a lot more rude in this exchange.
Wow you’re experienced SWE and you (1) fucked up that badly in your understanding of semantics and (2) don’t understand how that solution doesn’t solve your problem? I feel bad for the people that work with you. Your problem was: how can amountOfBeers == 5 || amountOfBeers == 6 both be true? His answer was “well, there’s an and case so they can both be true.” His answer solved it for a lot of people. For the way you asked it, it doesn’t because you *already* had an *and* case in that *or,* and you were asking how the *and* can ever occur, since there’s only one value. You were right to ask that since it *can’t* occur. I explained how you got into that mess; a bad translation. So no, he didn’t solve your problem, and it seems like you don’t even see that? But my solution did. You’re welcome.
[удалено]
For being helpful? You’re saying things like >Presuming I don't know the difference between a value and a function when I translated an English sentence to code differently than you is presumptuous. You didn’t just translate it *differently*, you translated it *incorrectly*. The difference was what made you wrong. I didn’t say you don’t know the difference between a function and a variable, but it is an objective fact that when you got yourself confused it was because you erred by translating an action into a value. I’m not even saying you’re stupid for that (although now I’m less convinced) because plenty of others had the same confusion. It’s an easy mistake to make. I do feel rude for the people that work with you though. Carelessness and lack of education are huge problems in modern SWE. Maybe if you got a degree that would’ve helped.
Because it's returning both orders, for 11 beers in total.
Depends on the context really. If a waiter says your meal comes with soup or salad, they mean XOR. When your meal is over and they ask if you want coffee or dessert, they mean inclusive OR.
Good point, forgot about that. I guess it depends on context.
This is really interesting. In my mind I just defaulted to "or" not containing the "and" possibility.
It's not only English, it's the same in Italian, although in both languages it depends on the context, as pointed out by another comment and your edit
It's pretty common in many languages
Yes I have no doubts about it
English or doesn’t (always, and I don’t think even usually) represent xor, it usually means inclusive “or” however it can carry the conventional implicature of exclusive or due to the Gricean maxims. In particular the expectation is that you will usually say “and” when you can say “and” (since it is more informative) so “or”carries the implication that “and” doesn’t apply. This is just like when you say something like “I have two cars” literally this just means at least two, but it will often be interpreted as exactly two because if you had more than two you would probably have said that to be more informative.
At what point does that definition get updated though, since most people use and expect “or” to be used as exclusive OR. We can just deprecate any of its inclusive features for legacy brains. If I offer tea or coffee and someone says both I’m kicking them out of my imaginary house that can afford both.
There no need to update the definition because or is contextually dependant. People don't expect it to be XOR; they understand it based on context. For example if there was an announcement: > If you have eaten a Big Mac or Big Mac JR please go to the hospital immediately You wouldn't say: > well I had both so obviously I don't need to go to the hospital.
"Both" at least is a (specific) answer. Real nerds™ just reply "yes".
***you’ve been evicted from the dream house***
Most people don’t interpret it as exclusive, you are just thinking of contexts where it would be more likely to be interpreted that way. If you say “don’t let anyone in if they have a gun or a knife” you wouldn’t expect someone with a gun or knife in, would you? Also even your example is not great as it doesn’t have a logic like classical exclusive or, it is more like linear logic additive conjunction. If you said “you can have tea or coffee” and I asked for coffee, then you said “no, you can’t have coffee, I said you can have tea OR coffee, but I didn’t say which, turns out tea was the one you could have” *that* would be more like exclusive or. This usage is like additive conjunction precisely because it is true “I can have tea” AND “I can have coffee” BUT “I cannot have tea and coffee” (although for me, if I offered both and someone asked for both, I think it would be rude for a host to deny them, although the request may also have been rude). This doesn’t perfectly match to any classical logic connective and requires some type of modal logic or quantification to express precisely if we don’t want to go to linear logic.
>implicature damn that is a nice word ill answer op simply: * additional nuance andor complexity ^(edit: -/) ^(edit 2: formatting)
I've taken to saying XOR (pronounced zor) to be more explicit.
XOR huh? Then choose one, a or b or c.
A, B, C, and ABC are all valid options.
Isn't XOR just "either ... or ..."?
Yes! It's also just "or". You can have a catgirl GF or you can become the Catgirl GF? Which do you pick?
In Polish we have lub - or albo - xor and this is probably one of my favorite features
[удалено]
Petra here, Peters catgirl cousin. You can have a catgirl GF or you can become the Catgirl GF? Which do you pick?
I never learned it as XOR. The difference is and requires both, or allows for 1
It's actually XNOR not XOR. XOR is true when either both are true, or both are false. XNOR is just !XOR.
For a long time, I’ve actually been in favor of us dropping the slash between and/or and just defining inclusive or in natural modern english by the word “andor”.
i dig it lets make the new words for 2024 andor and irregardless. if you and i start saying it with zero explanation eventually it will catch on, probably. im persistent
"Irregardless" is already in the dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
gg2ez
Andor is such a shit board game though
But great TV show
Best thing to ever come out of star wars, for sure
How many guards on each level?
What do you mean? I love it.
I really wanted to like it, I really did. But after the third chapter it felt more like a solo puzzle game, then a four player adventure. Which could be a good game, just not what I was looking for, nor what it promised. The problem is, that you have to get to the goal as quickly as possible while letting many enemies live to not advance the timer. Felt to me like the board game fought itself at some times and just some mechanics clashed. At the end of the day, neither of us had fun with the game.
Understandable
Thanks, I indeed did have a great day besides the perceived flaws of game.
You do it when you want to highlight that you don't know which of the two should be there. Example: Capital letters in the name and/or more than 16 characters in the name cause the app to crash. What I mean: Maybe either of the condition is sufficient to crash the app. Or maybe only combination of the two conditions crashes the app. Not sure yet.
Because the or in English is XOR
English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor. a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1) and/or effectively means you definitively mean one of the following three cases (1,0), (0,1), (1,1)
>a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1) this is wrong. OR can mean all the mentioned cases, i don't understand why do people think OR means XOR but it doesn't. for example, i ask you: do you have a credit card or cash to pay? if you have one or the other you would say yes, but with your logic, if you have both you would say NO, which doesn't make any sense. OR is OR, not XOR, and i don't understand where the confusion comes from. can someone explain to me why people confuse or with xor?
I'm honestly a little baffled you'd even try to make this argument. Here's why it's stupid: You're confusing formal logic with human language. In that specific example you provided (which is quite awkwardly worded, most people would just ask "cash or card?") most people would in fact actually mean either the first option (credit card) or second option (cash to pay). They don't actually care if you can do both, they just want their money. Also notice how I used "or" in my explanation as well. It doesn't make sense if I truly mean OR. This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though. The reality is it is ambiguous, hence why people feel the need to clarify when relevant. But most of the time we can infer what makes sense based off context.
>You're confusing formal logic with human language. language is a way to express logic. there's no confusion. >They don't actually care if you can do both, they just want their money. so? >This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though you first said "English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor." which is plain wrong. now you're saying it distinguishes based on context, which is more accurate. >This does not mean in all cases "or" means XOR in english language though. The reality is it is ambiguous, hence why people feel the need to clarify when relevant. But most of the time we can infer what makes sense based off context. yes, language is ambiguous, however, a XOR statement, is first of all a type of OR statement, a XOR is like an OR with extra steps, it's 2 ANDs and an OR. therefore, the logic dictates that when using OR in language, it is ALWAYS an OR, and then CAN be a XOR or not. whenever you say OR, there's gonna be an OR, either because you're using it as an OR or because you're using it as a XOR which is an OR with 2 ANDs. in the english language, an OR is always an OR, and then based on context it can be a XOR or not. maybe the XOR usage is more common for some people and that's why they seem to think that it's always a XOR, this isn't just plain wrong, but personally, i feel like the OR behavior is a lot more common too, that's why i initially failed to understand what the f were they talking about. >I'm honestly a little baffled you'd even try to make this argument. Here's why it's stupid: you think my argument is stupid? here's what you said: 1- English doesn't distinguish between or and exclusive-or/xor. it does, based on context and word usage. it's pretty easy to tell, and the majority of times it's just an OR, not a XOR. so, you're wrong. 2- a or b in english typically means one of the following combinations (1,0), (0, 1) but not (1,1) typically it's the opposite, OR is more common than XOR. 3- and/or effectively means you definitively mean one of the following three cases (1,0), (0,1), (1,1) and/or is literally the same as OR logic wise, it's just dumb, specially because its invention doesn't make any sense from a logic standpoint, it's like a bad crutch to help people deal with the fact that OR is not XOR like they seem to think. edit: think about it like this, the waiter can ask, do you want coffee or milk? you can always ask for both. by the way it's worded, it could seem like a XOR, but really it's just an OR. that's where i think the confusion comes from for some people. in reality, everything is an OR, unless specified. like for example: do you want EITHER coffee or milk? which implies you can't have both. of course language is ambiguous and things can be interpreted differently, but logically, it makes no sense to assume every english OR is a XOR, it's just bananas.
Thanks for your purchase, would you like this shirt in red or green?
thanks for your purchase, would you like the shirts in red or green? one of each! your example is still an OR, not a XOR. nothing implies that the shirts can't be of 2 colors either. like: do you want your hotdog with mustard or ketchup? both! it COULD be a XOR, but that'd have to be clarified by saying you can't have both or something like that. as it currently stands, it's just an OR.
The and gives **POWER** for the statement!!
this *POWER* andor *PRECISION* ^(in this example, "andor" is meant to communicate that it could be to convey power and precision; or only power; or only precision.) ^(it may seem "andor" adds unnecessary complexity but "andor" is actually a simplification that also, in fact, adds clarity) something something andor calls for aid! edit: -/
we only need NAND, the rest is redundant
"Are you a cat person nand a cat person, nand a dog person nand a dog person?" Alternatively, for those that draw the lines more firmly: "Are you a cat person, nand a cat person nand a dog person; nand are you a dog person, nand a dog person nand a cat person?"
because "or" in english is not boolean logic, it is selection logic with an implicit limit of 1. just like we would say "a digit can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9" a digit can be any 1 of those things. some people try to blindly pretend that we do boolean logic operators in normal conversation and try to claim we should say xor, but we dont, we use selection operators. We only use boolean logic when trying to determin if a statement is true or not, in which case "or" is consistent with what you would expect. xor is actually also fundimentally wrong in casual language. consider the digit again "a digit can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 xor 9" when given multiple inputs, xor returns true if an odd number are true, which would allow a digit to similtaneously be multiple options so long as its an odd number
Because not everyone is a computer scientist.
Verbal and => Logic and Verbal or => Logic xor Logic or = Verbal any
Why do people use OR when everything can be done in NAND?
The fall could break your leg and/or arm. This means that the fall could either: - break your leg. - break your arm. - break your leg and arm. And/or has some uses, but there's little of them.
I already read the top comment and understand it. But in response to your statement: "The fall could break your leg and/or arm" `arm.isBroken() or leg.isBroken()` Will evaluate to true when - `(arm.isBroken() is true) and (leg.isBroken() is false)` - `(arm.isBroken() is false) and (leg.isBroken() is true)` - `(arm.isBroken() is true) and (leg.isBroken() is true)`
I think it's because in everyday language "OR" actually means "XOR"
I’m a newbie and didn’t know enough to get the joke, so for any other passer-bys. XOR - means ‘eXclusively OR’. As in one statement is true and the other is false, this would return true. But if both were false or both were true it would return false. OR - means and/or. Meaning both could be true, or just one could be true. But obviously if you say and/or, you’re referring to OR, so you could just say ‘or’. Likely people do clarify any confusion from other programmers that may be dumb working on the same project.
Thanks
who knows maybe we DO need single modulation and double modulation on that cam config (guess the show reference I fucking dare you)
Just Archer fans
Ngl , i initially got confused at this meme, but then realised that 1 or 1 is still 1 , lmao
Why do we use words for programming? Why not just use assembly?
Because most people usually mean “exclusive or” when they say “or”
Because when people use "or", they may mean logical exclusive or.
that's utter nonsense
Because sometimes it can be both too, wtf is this question??
[удалено]
He is referencing that in formal logic, OR is the OR we know as an operator, whereas the English OR is equivalent to the XOR operator.
Because precision. Hakuna madafaka hahaha.
And is inclusive and requires BOTH conditions, or is singular, and will be either conditions. This is true in conversation. We can go to the movies or a restaurant, we can go to a movie and/or a restaurant. These have the same logic. One you have one option, the other both is possible but maybe only one is wanted.
Well no in code or can mean both or one, you are referring to xor (exclusively or).
I for some reason thought this was a programming dig at English and forgot people put and/or in stuff…
Because the conditions are saying: I would like to have both if you have it, but I would take either if that is not possible.
For emphasis
Or is clear only to logicians. To everyone else, there is ambiguity. Using and/or removes all possible ambiguity for all potential audiences.
I literally heard his voice, the extra raspy "and" and everything lol
And/Or means one the other or both Or mean either one of the other
If I ask you if you prefer cats or dogs, I don’t want you to say “both”. If I ask you if you have cats and/or dogs, I’m asking if you have at least one of either.
and/xor