3 ms·
"if not a, then not b" is equivalent to "if b then a" and is neither equivalent to nor the opposite of "a implies b". I'm having trouble understanding your poin
by tgb 9y ago
"if not a, then not b" is equivalent to "if b then a" and is neither equivalent to nor the opposite of "a implies b". I'm having trouble understanding your point under these confusions. Is it that being able to explain is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for understanding?
- sh87 9y agoPoint taken. My point is just because I can simply explain it does not imply clear understanding. And not being able to explain isn't a reliable indicator of lack of understanding