3 ms·
I think pan69 parsed the sentence as Was the insider in the set {Karpeles, Employee} Which is true by definition. Instead of Which element of the set
by gamegoblin 12y ago
I think pan69 parsed the sentence as
Was the insider in the set {Karpeles, Employee}
Which is true by definition. Instead of
Which element of the set {Karpeles, Employee} satisfies the condition (==insider)
Which is what zzleeper was intending.
This is why we should implement "xor" in natural language :D Now for the wars on if it's pronounced "zor" or "ex-or".
- baddox 12y agoXOR wouldn't help much in this case. The answer to "Was the culprit A XOR B?" would still be interpreted such that the answer is a Yes or No.
- gamegoblin 12y agoTrue. It's more like "For condition C, I assert that a single element of set S satisfies C. Which element is it?" This could be useful for situations like: Question: "Was it night or day?" Logician's Answer: "Yes"
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dandelany 12y agoTell me again why we need a new linguistic construction when we have the word "which"? "So which was it, Karpeles or one of his employees?" "Which was it, night or day?"