Talk:And/or

Just a question:

Jim will not eat cake and pie.----Does it suggest that Jim will not eat 2 things, but he may eat cake, or pie (one of the two options)?

Jim will not eat cake or pie.----Can I interpret it as, Jim will not eat any of the two?

Just an answer:

Does it matter in this context? The point is that neither is resolved by using "Jim will not eat cake and/or pie". English already provides for avoiding ambiguity without introducing the unhelpful "and or or" construction. You could say "Jim may eat either cake or pie" or "Jim may eat neither cake nor pie".

mouse 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes me want cake, pie, and brownies. I hate dieting...

Either

After the 2nd paragraph establishes that "and/or" is problematic, and the 3rd paragraph states an argument for using it, the 4th paragraph counters that argument by saying two things: (a) that either, as a conjunction, appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive; and (b) that it is not necessary to use either as a conjunction when the function of "or" is clear from the context. So far, so good.

However, don't we still need to suggest how to indicate that the choices are not mutually exclusive for cases in which the function of "or" is not clear from the context? In other words, the absence of either does not tell us that the writer would invariably have used either (or some similar indicator) if the choices had been mutually exclusive.

I'm not suggesting that this article needs to be a complete grammar lesson on this subject. I simply think that we've left one logical part of the argument unsettled.

--rich<Rich Janis 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

Does the other need to indicate that the choices are mutually exclusive? I put together a quick comparison/explanation here:

http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html

It's not as if we can expect authors to write "and/exclusive or". 198.103.96.11 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge

Do not merge it. It's an outstanding linguistic phenomenon not directly related to logic and mathematics. --ssr 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XOR

I've heard the term XOR used, like the Logic Gate 86.42.137.48 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this sentence?!

It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or." [2]

To me, this sounds like a (referenced, yes, thank you :o)) very poor argument because it assumes without any rational basis that "pick[ing] whatever suits him" should be contrary to the contracting parties. Given that the case for and against "and/or" is clear without it, I'd suggest to simply delete the sentence. Quite apart from the fact that the sentence portrays a contended opinion ("damaging", "sloppy") as referenced fact.

And please don't argue with me about whether or not the sentence is right in condemning "and/or"... because I don't really care. In Wikipedia, I care more about bad arguments than about the opinions they may [try to] support... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words! Gah!

"Others argue that in a very legalistic society, the word "or" is no longer sufficiently clear, because it may indicate choices that are mutually exclusive"

This is the very thing that people mock Wikipedia for, especially those on Encyclopedia Dramatica. This sentence needs to be changed to avoid weasel words. Zell65 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of 'and/or' on wikipedia

Should it be allowed? Or change it to just 'or'? Lightblade (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]