by ohthatpatrick Tue May 09, 2017 2:09 pm
Before I begin, I hate this way of notating these rules.
But you're right about your contrapositive,
-(-R+T) and -(-T+R)--> -S
Those "-" in front are like a -1 outside a parenthesis.
-1(-x + y) = x - y
Of course, in our logic statements, we need to not only negate the the letters but also flip "and" to "or" (or vice versa).
So if we "distribute" the negative in
-(-R+T) and -(-T+R)--> -S
we'd get
[R or -T] and [T or -R] --> -S
What would it take to trigger the left side of that idea?
You need a representative from bracket 1 and a representative from bracket 2.
If you have (R or -T) and you have (T or -R), then you get -S.
Well you would never have R and -R. (it's a contradiction)
You'd never have -T and T.
So the rule is only going to be triggered if we have
R and T
or
-T and -R
So the math works, but that is truly awful.
Here's how I prefer to think of these rules:
S-->(-R+T) or (-T+R)
The right side is saying that "either R or T, but not both, is in". Since that means that one will be IN and one will be OUT, I symbolize the right side as a typical "enemy" rule.
In grouping games, when we have a rule that says "R and T can't be in the same group", I would put them in a circle and cross it out.
There's no way to draw that in this typing environment, but we'll make it look like -(RT).
So I would have
S --> -(RT)
and
(RT) --> -S
When I read that I think
"When S is in, then I have to split up R and T ... so one will be IN and one will be OUT"
and I read the contrapositive as
"If R and T are found in the same place, then S is OUT"
Hope this helps.