Is there a contraction for non-exclusive or?
I find that often, in technical writing, I want to specify that or is non-exclusive: or ≠ xor; or = and/or.
(Stylistically, "and or" is terrible and gets tiresome quickly;)
As an example of the type of ambiguity that can arise, see I need clarification on the use of the word “either”.
If one has established an "xor" in natural language, "or" can be assumed to be non-exclusive can be assumed, but that may not be explicit enough.
- Has attempted to introduce, even unsuccessfully, a contraction for "non-exclusive or" that relates symbolically to xor?
--------------------------------------------
Russel & Whitehead used "v" as a symbol. [See: Symbol for 'Or']
See also: Does “or” mean both conditions?
terminology contractions logic
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
add a comment |
I find that often, in technical writing, I want to specify that or is non-exclusive: or ≠ xor; or = and/or.
(Stylistically, "and or" is terrible and gets tiresome quickly;)
As an example of the type of ambiguity that can arise, see I need clarification on the use of the word “either”.
If one has established an "xor" in natural language, "or" can be assumed to be non-exclusive can be assumed, but that may not be explicit enough.
- Has attempted to introduce, even unsuccessfully, a contraction for "non-exclusive or" that relates symbolically to xor?
--------------------------------------------
Russel & Whitehead used "v" as a symbol. [See: Symbol for 'Or']
See also: Does “or” mean both conditions?
terminology contractions logic
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
1
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday
add a comment |
I find that often, in technical writing, I want to specify that or is non-exclusive: or ≠ xor; or = and/or.
(Stylistically, "and or" is terrible and gets tiresome quickly;)
As an example of the type of ambiguity that can arise, see I need clarification on the use of the word “either”.
If one has established an "xor" in natural language, "or" can be assumed to be non-exclusive can be assumed, but that may not be explicit enough.
- Has attempted to introduce, even unsuccessfully, a contraction for "non-exclusive or" that relates symbolically to xor?
--------------------------------------------
Russel & Whitehead used "v" as a symbol. [See: Symbol for 'Or']
See also: Does “or” mean both conditions?
terminology contractions logic
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
I find that often, in technical writing, I want to specify that or is non-exclusive: or ≠ xor; or = and/or.
(Stylistically, "and or" is terrible and gets tiresome quickly;)
As an example of the type of ambiguity that can arise, see I need clarification on the use of the word “either”.
If one has established an "xor" in natural language, "or" can be assumed to be non-exclusive can be assumed, but that may not be explicit enough.
- Has attempted to introduce, even unsuccessfully, a contraction for "non-exclusive or" that relates symbolically to xor?
--------------------------------------------
Russel & Whitehead used "v" as a symbol. [See: Symbol for 'Or']
See also: Does “or” mean both conditions?
terminology contractions logic
terminology contractions logic
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
asked yesterday
DukeZhouDukeZhou
768414
768414
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
1
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday
add a comment |
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
1
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
1
1
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As far as I know, there is no natural language contraction for the inclusive or.
In fact, in order to make it explicit, you have to write something even longer:
You can choose A, B, or A and B.
But even that may not be explicit enough—because it doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of not making a choice—or making a choice that isn't any of those things.
If an inclusive choice has be made, then you have to say something like this:
You must choose A, B, or A and B.
Note that this also applies to the natural language equivalent of the exclusive or:
You can choose either A or B, but not both.
Generally, adding just either is enough; however, many people add the extra three words if they want to make sure there is no room for any confusion at all.
And also, in the more explicit version:
You must choose either A or B, but not both.
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491039%2fis-there-a-contraction-for-non-exclusive-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As far as I know, there is no natural language contraction for the inclusive or.
In fact, in order to make it explicit, you have to write something even longer:
You can choose A, B, or A and B.
But even that may not be explicit enough—because it doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of not making a choice—or making a choice that isn't any of those things.
If an inclusive choice has be made, then you have to say something like this:
You must choose A, B, or A and B.
Note that this also applies to the natural language equivalent of the exclusive or:
You can choose either A or B, but not both.
Generally, adding just either is enough; however, many people add the extra three words if they want to make sure there is no room for any confusion at all.
And also, in the more explicit version:
You must choose either A or B, but not both.
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
add a comment |
As far as I know, there is no natural language contraction for the inclusive or.
In fact, in order to make it explicit, you have to write something even longer:
You can choose A, B, or A and B.
But even that may not be explicit enough—because it doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of not making a choice—or making a choice that isn't any of those things.
If an inclusive choice has be made, then you have to say something like this:
You must choose A, B, or A and B.
Note that this also applies to the natural language equivalent of the exclusive or:
You can choose either A or B, but not both.
Generally, adding just either is enough; however, many people add the extra three words if they want to make sure there is no room for any confusion at all.
And also, in the more explicit version:
You must choose either A or B, but not both.
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
add a comment |
As far as I know, there is no natural language contraction for the inclusive or.
In fact, in order to make it explicit, you have to write something even longer:
You can choose A, B, or A and B.
But even that may not be explicit enough—because it doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of not making a choice—or making a choice that isn't any of those things.
If an inclusive choice has be made, then you have to say something like this:
You must choose A, B, or A and B.
Note that this also applies to the natural language equivalent of the exclusive or:
You can choose either A or B, but not both.
Generally, adding just either is enough; however, many people add the extra three words if they want to make sure there is no room for any confusion at all.
And also, in the more explicit version:
You must choose either A or B, but not both.
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
As far as I know, there is no natural language contraction for the inclusive or.
In fact, in order to make it explicit, you have to write something even longer:
You can choose A, B, or A and B.
But even that may not be explicit enough—because it doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of not making a choice—or making a choice that isn't any of those things.
If an inclusive choice has be made, then you have to say something like this:
You must choose A, B, or A and B.
Note that this also applies to the natural language equivalent of the exclusive or:
You can choose either A or B, but not both.
Generally, adding just either is enough; however, many people add the extra three words if they want to make sure there is no room for any confusion at all.
And also, in the more explicit version:
You must choose either A or B, but not both.
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
answered yesterday
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
19.1k32245
19.1k32245
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491039%2fis-there-a-contraction-for-non-exclusive-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I hope this question will be found tolerable, as it is a serious one. I linked three related, useful (but under-voted) previous stack questions.
– DukeZhou
yesterday
1
There's only and/or really. It does get tiresome, but the workarounds are not much less tiresome, and in any long-ish piece of writing (in a field where this comes up a lot), you will eventually come across a situation where even the best workaround is so clumsy it's better to use and/or - and then you'll wish you'd bitten the bullet the first time and used it throughout.
– Minty
yesterday