As a result, thousands of people will serve longer prison terms.
  • randomaccount43543@lemmy.world
    72·
    3 months ago

    Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:

    It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that:

    not (A and B and C)

    is equal to

    (not A) or (not B) or (not C)

    —

    In this case:

    The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)

    Which is the same as

    The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)

    —

    Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that

    not (A and B and C)

    is equal to

    (not A) and (not B) and (not C)

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      1·
      3 months ago

      You’re missing the grammatical point of a itemised list though. Writing

      abc is not

      • condition 1,
      • condition 2, and
      • condition 3.

      Reads as the “not” distributing so as to create the full sentence(es)

      • abc is not condition 1,
      • abc is not condition 2, and
      • abc is not condition 3.

      In other words, writing this as an itemised list makes it different from writing it as the sentence

      abc is not condition 1, condition 2 and condition 3.