You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi there! I’m really enjoying your online textbook, thank you for making it free online and providing helpful exercises and examples!
I came across the language:
Note that for us, or is the inclusive or (and not the sometimes used exclusive or) meaning that P ∨ Q and P ∨ Q is in fact true when both P and Q are true.
This language was a bit confusing to me, as I’m re-learning discrete math after 15 years. It might be less confusing to say:
Note that for us, or is the inclusive or (and not the sometimes used exclusive or) meaning that P ∨ Q and P ∨ Q is true in fact when both P and Q are true and when either P or Q is true.
If you agree, I’d be happy to put in a pull request. Thanks again!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think it is more clear to say it in the other order:
P ∨ Q is in fact true when P is true, or when Q is true,
or when both are true.
Maybe it would be good to go on to talk about what exclusive or
means (and give a symbol to it), and then start a new paragraph
with the discussion of "and"?
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020, Laura Beaufort wrote:
Hi there! I’m really enjoying your online textbook, thank you for making it free online and
providing helpful exercises and examples!
I came across the language
Note that for us, or is the inclusive or (and not the sometimes used exclusive or)
meaning that P ∨ Q and P ∨ Q is in fact true when both
P and Q are true.
Source: http://discrete.openmathbooks.org/dmoi3/sec_intro-statements.html#wKm
This language was a bit confusing to me, as I’m re-learning discrete math after 15 years. It
might be less confusing to say:
Note that for us, or is the inclusive or (and not the sometimes used exclusive or)
meaning that P ∨ Q and P ∨ Q is true in fact when both
P and Q are true and when either P or Q is true.
If you agree, I’d be happy to put in a pull request. Thanks again!
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, orunsubscribe.[AABTULFFMTTQCQTMFK7COPTSTPBJPA5CNFSM4UPPQY5KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNV
SW45C7NFSM4LJN56EA.gif]
Hi there! I’m really enjoying your online textbook, thank you for making it free online and providing helpful exercises and examples!
I came across the language:
Source: http://discrete.openmathbooks.org/dmoi3/sec_intro-statements.html#wKm
This language was a bit confusing to me, as I’m re-learning discrete math after 15 years. It might be less confusing to say:
If you agree, I’d be happy to put in a pull request. Thanks again!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: