This is probably simple, but I need someone to explain this to me. I'm usually good with necessary/sufficient type stuff but this rule is weird. Maybe it's because I've been at work all day.
Roughly:
In order for X to be picked, Y must be picked.
Intuitively it seems that this would be diagrammed as:
Y ------> X
However, the correct representation of this rule is apparently:
X ------> Y
Can someone please break down why I am retarded?
Quick grouping game diagramming question Forum
- Campagnolo

- Posts: 906
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:49 pm
Re: Quick grouping game diagramming question
Y must be picked. That makes it necessary and therefore the condition on the right. Sometimes the contrapositive makes more sense: If Y is not picked, what about X?tfleming09 wrote:This is probably simple, but I need someone to explain this to me. I'm usually good with necessary/sufficient type stuff but this rule is weird. Maybe it's because I've been at work all day.
Roughly:
In order for X to be picked, Y must be picked.
Intuitively it seems that this would be diagrammed as:
Y ------> X
However, the correct representation of this rule is apparently:
X ------> Y
Can someone please break down why I am retarded?
- rinkrat19

- Posts: 13922
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am
Re: Quick grouping game diagramming question
Because you can have Y without having X, but you can't have X without Y.
- timmydoeslsat

- Posts: 148
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm
Re: Quick grouping game diagramming question
Just think about what you know to be true from that statement.tfleming09 wrote: In order for X to be picked, Y must be picked.
What happens if we have X?
We would have to have Y. Therefore, X ---> Y
- flem

- Posts: 12882
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm
Re: Quick grouping game diagramming question
Thanks all
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login