Question #1736

Contradiction in the rules?

Started by MatthewK · started 2022-05-06 20:34 · last activity 2022-05-10 00:34 · 1 reply

This isn't specifically related to this question, more just the rules overall. I’m a little confused about how rules 3-5 don’t contradict each other. Rule 3: Ls -> Nr and Pr. Rule 4: Nr -> Or Rule 5: Pr -> Ks and Os. So, hypothetically, let’s say we place L in S. This would result in both N and P being placed in R. Then, since N is placed in R, this would force O to be in R as well. But, if P is placed in R, then O (along with K), needs to be placed in S, even though O is already placed in R?

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-05-10 00:34

    Hi MatthewK, You are completely right that the conditional scenarios described in 3 and 5 are mutually exclusive. If (as we know from 3 and 4) L is at S, then we know that Nr and Pr, and Or. We also know from the contrapositive of rule 5 that if Or -> Ps, so we actually have a deduction that if Ls ->Ps

Sign in to reply.