without A or B = not A and not B? correct????? Forum

[kky215]

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

[OsaroLJ]

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.

[drewmm]

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.

Huh? I think OP is correct.

"I went to the store without my money or my shopping list." I didn't have my money AND I didn't have my shopping list.

Having some more context might be helpful, since without isn't quite a standard logical operator, but I think you're right.

[magickware]

Need more context. I have no idea where you might see something like that.

OsaroLJ is likely confusing the OP's statement with conditional logic or something.

[kky215]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I saw this in PT 65 S4 Q5 LR

"the plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present"

I understood it like this:
"the plaintiff has applied to the court to DISALLOW codefendants AND codefendants' legal counsel"

[Jeffort]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I saw this in PT 65 S4 Q5 LR

"the plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present"

I understood it like this:
"the plaintiff has applied to the court to DISALLOW codefendants AND codefendants' legal counsel"

Your understanding of that statement is correct, it means both of them not present in that context.

[ArtistOfManliness]

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

Yes.

[jkhalfa]

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.

You're kinda wrong and kinda right. OP really did just negate one:

"without A or B"

~(A ∨ B) like you said

~A ∧ ~B via DeMorgan's

So OP was correct.

[wtrc]

The PT 65 question you are referring to is a confusing one because it doesn't say anything about the defendant's legal counsel. But yeah, Not A or B= Not A and Not B.

[OsaroLJ]

Good call. I was thinking about demorgan for some reason.

[manofjustice]

Better Call Saul!

p.s. OP is right.

Protip. Try to bracket the statements in your mind. As you read and you see the word "without," stop for a moment. Bracket it. Think "the things that follow are not there..." And then look at each thing that follows.

The improper interpretation by which you were likely confused is that the sentence meant "without A" or B, i.e. "either not A, or B."

That's just bad bracketing. It's not syntactical. The sentence would have read "without co-defendant or with co-defendant's counsel." But the sentence doesn't read that way.

Think about how your interpretation would manifest itself in words. It's not JUST logic. It's logic and English.