Using "either ... or ..." in the examples seems to me a little misleading, because in my opinion "either ... or ..." structure states that only one of the prepositions is true, but not both simultaneously: dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/either-or
"Sam loves hotdogs but he doesn't like relish." (This sentence has a negation in it, but it's not a negation, but morgan's laws are about negations, so it's put in the form: ~(H.R) and ~(H.R) ~H V ~R so we take the conjunction and turn it into a disjunction of negations: Either Sam doesn't like hotdogs or he likes relish. Then put it in the form ~H V ~R: ~(Sam loves hot dogs) or ~(Sam doesn't like relish) Either Sam doesn't love hot dogs or Sam likes relish And thus...~(H.R) ~H V ~(~R) ..~(H.R) ~H v Relish The trick for me is to think "they're not equivalent statements but just turning a normal conjunction into a negation so that you can formulate the disjunction of negations to show one of morgan's laws.
I think neither/nor refers to "both not" so it would be in the form ~A . ~B which would be equivalent to ~(AVB) which is the other rule of morgan's laws not addressed here. If you look at the truth tables for ~(AVB) and ~A. ~B they both have the same pattern but the former is a negation of a disjunction but the latter is a conjuction of negations so you have to think of the first one as negating the truth table of the disjunction.
Using "either ... or ..." in the examples seems to me a little misleading, because in my opinion "either ... or ..." structure states that only one of the prepositions is true, but not both simultaneously:
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/either-or
"Sam loves hotdogs but he doesn't like relish."
(This sentence has a negation in it, but it's not a negation, but morgan's laws are about negations, so it's put in the form:
~(H.R)
and ~(H.R) ~H V ~R
so we take the conjunction and turn it into a disjunction of negations:
Either Sam doesn't like hotdogs or he likes relish.
Then put it in the form ~H V ~R:
~(Sam loves hot dogs) or ~(Sam doesn't like relish)
Either Sam doesn't love hot dogs or Sam likes relish
And thus...~(H.R) ~H V ~(~R)
..~(H.R) ~H v Relish
The trick for me is to think "they're not equivalent statements but just turning a normal conjunction into a negation so that you can formulate the disjunction of negations to show one of morgan's laws.
What do ya'll think of that new artist mgnocturnal or whatever trash or dope?
What about "Neither/Nor" circumstances?
What about Either (not A) and/or (not B)?
Aren't these distinct cases which also contradict a compound claim?
I think neither/nor refers to "both not" so it would be in the form ~A . ~B which would be equivalent to ~(AVB) which is the other rule of morgan's laws not addressed here. If you look at the truth tables for ~(AVB) and ~A. ~B they both have the same pattern but the former is a negation of a disjunction but the latter is a conjuction of negations so you have to think of the first one as negating the truth table of the disjunction.
The answer shouldn't be "Sam doesn't LIKE hotdogs or he likes relish" it should be "Sam doesn't LOVE hotdogs to he likes relish".
This is so petty. It's just a spelling mistake.
Man it didn’t make any sense to me at all😂😂😂😂gotta revise the shit again
sSSSS