2

Say, I have three independent logical clauses, a, b, and c, and they are connected into one logical statement (a∧b∧c). How do I express this succinctly? Can I say, "a, b, and c are connected conjunctively?" I don't seem to get many hits for that construct on Google.

(This is a question about English language and usage, albeit in a very specific field, mathematical logics. I hope it's still on topic, here.)

Johannes Bauer
  • 687
  • It is not clear what you are asking. Are you asking for a linguistic terminology or a for examples of syntax? – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 10:09
  • I'm asking for an expression. – Johannes Bauer Mar 02 '16 at 10:13
  • The more specialised the field, the less likely there is to be an everyday expression to cover any specific situation in an adequate (well-defined) way. // Surely, in logic, 'John is tall, Ali is clever, and Betty is pretty' would be analysed as three independent statements (truth values 0, 1 and 1, perhaps)? Once you start using the logical and operator, you're outside the scope of everyday English; 'and' is not really the same English word any more. Though the term 'conjunction' is apparently used in the new sense also [Wikipedia]. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 02 '16 at 10:26
  • 2
    They are conjuncted -- though I would rather say they are anded, which's perfectly legal, simpler and makes the reader's life all that much easier. – Kris Mar 02 '16 at 10:40
  • To add to @Kris, and be more specific, putting a tiny bit more emphasis on and(AND) can make it work even better. "A, b, and c are AND-ed". – Sakatox Mar 02 '16 at 12:37
  • There is sequential/subsequence dependency AND, vs adjuct mutually independent events AND, vs conjuct shared-attribute AND. Sequential/subsequence dependency AND can be either bayesian-subsequence subjunctive, or stative subsequence. – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 14:20
  • Pls specify which AND you are desiring to engage in. Or all of them. – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 14:24
  • Also take note of demorgan's resolution which states that (1) {not A} AND {not B} = not {A OR B}. (2) {not A} OR {not B} = not {A AND B}. – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 14:28
  • Also consider stating for the case of {A AND B AND C}, whether A, B. C are the exclusive members of an event set, or are just a pick of a larger unspecified number of members event-set. – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 14:33
  • @BlessedGeek : I'm looking for the simple, propositional logic case, though I seriously doubt that it makes any difference for the verbalization of the formula. And since I'm talking about logics, not probability, I can't see how anything Bayesian may be related. Furthermore, I do know de Morgan's laws, but what do they have to do with my question? – Johannes Bauer Mar 02 '16 at 14:35
  • Bayesian subsequence can be boolean. Many subjuctive cases are bayesian subsequence. Bayesian is the subsequence dependency of events. Bayesian logic and Bayesian probability are the derivative subjects of bayesian events. – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 15:31
  • My take on bayesian subjunctive : http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/155893/how-is-the-english-subjunctive-composed/156033#156033 – Blessed Geek Mar 02 '16 at 15:36

2 Answers2

0

Just say "All of these1 conditions2 are3 true."
________
1 Or "the above" or "the below", as applicable.
2 Or "statements".
3 Or "must be".

Scott - Слава Україні
  • 7,276
0

You can say that a, b and c form a conjunction.

Although one might say that the conjunction is just the word and in that sentence, the word can also be used to refer to (a∧b∧c) as a whole.

Here is an example from a book in a relevant field:

, Symbolic Logic by Hardegree, page 104:

... the statement,
(c) Jay and Kay are Sophomores,
is equivalent to the conjunction,
Jay is a Sophomore, and Kay is a Sophomore,
and is accordingly symbolized
J & K
- Hardegree, pp103-104, Symbolic Logic

Lawrence
  • 38,640