4

3 is not a factor of m or of n.

Meaning of the above statement the way I understand it is 3 is not a factor of m or 3 is not a factor of n.

I think that I might be wrong because here I suggested an edit which was rejected.

My question:

Is the meaning of 3 is not a factor of m or of n the same as 3 is not a factor of both m and n. If yes, then please correct me by helping me understand what is it that I missunderstood.

2

Unfortunately, English does not always work in an entirely logical way, especially with 'logic words'. From a logical standpoint, "3 is not a factor of m or of n" should mean

3 is not a factor of m, OR 3 is not a factor of n. 3 might be a factor of m, and it might be a factor of n, but it is not a factor of both.

and "3 is not a factor of m and of n" should mean

3 is not a factor of m, AND 3 is not a factor of n. It can not be a factor of either.

This is actually backwards of the meaning in English. The English meaning of the first one is:

3 is not a factor of m, NOR is it a factor of n. It is not a factor of either.

and the second one means

3 is not a factor of both m and n. 3 might be a factor of m, and it might be a factor of n, but it is not a factor of both.

Think of it this way.

"Do you want ice cream or cake?" "No, I'm full." (I do not want ice cream, nor do I want cake.)

"Do you want ice cream and cake?" "No, I'll just take some cake." (I do not want ice cream and cake, but I do want some cake.)

That is the first reason your review was rejected. The second reason, is because "contraposition" is not a typo. According to wikipedia, contraposition is a law about contrapositives. Therefore, a contraposition argument is an argument using contrapositives and the law of contraposition, but a contrapositive argument doesn't really exist.

  • Glad I could help! – DJMcMayhem Apr 18 '15 at 15:22
  • 1
    This is plain wrong. From a logical standpoint, "three is not a factor of m or of n" parses exactly the same way as "I do not eat meat or fish." The negation applies to the disjunction, with the meaning "the following statement is not true: 'three is a factor of m, or three is a factor of n'." In logic and in English, this is equivalent to "three is not a factor of m and three is not a factor of n." – David Richerby Apr 19 '15 at 0:22
1

Three is not a factor of m or of n = Three is not a factor of m, and three is not a factor of n. = Three is a factor of neither m nor n.

"Three is not a factor of both m and n" is not a good way to put this, because it could be taken to mean "three is not a common factor of m and n". Interpreted this way, it might still be possible for three to be a factor of either m or n individually if it is not a factor of the other one.

0

Here is my take on it.

    "3 is not a factor of m or of n"
=  clarify
    "it is not true that 3 is a factor of m or of n"
=  clarify
    "it is not true that 3 is a factor of m nor that 3 is a factor of n"
=  In mathematical notation
    not ( m | 3 or n | 3)
=  De Morgan
    not m | 3 and not n | 3
=  Back to English
    "3 is not a factor of m and 3 is not a factor of n"

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.