The two expressions are the same and the, or ,is only indicating the two diferent ways of expressing the same expression. If you think they are determining two different views then the, or ,is insufficient.

There are two meanings of "or": the inclusive sense, and the exclusive sense.

An example of the inclusive sense of "or" is, "the author of Tom Sawyer was called, "Mark Twain" or, "Samuel L. Clemens". (Sometimes we express this inclusive sense of "or" as, "and/or".

And example of the exclusive sense of "or" is: "You can marry Mabel, or Sally" The laws of bigamy prohibit marrying both. This sense of "or" is sometimes expressed as, X or Y, but not both X and Y.

Wiki about the exclusive "or". It is also called xor. It even has its own logical symbol. Swartz and Bradley spend some time discussing the interpretation of different uses of "or", "and", etc. in english in their 1979 book.

Wiki about the exclusive "or". It is also called xor. It even has its own logical symbol. Swartz and Bradley spend some time discussing the interpretation of different uses of "or", "and", etc. in english in their 1979 book.

Yea, I was going to say that or has meaning opposed to and. Being versed in "logic gates" used in electronics... an or gate lets either stimulus through. The and gate can only open if both stimuli are true.

This may be slightly off topic, but I was pondering the meaning of "+" (plus). It seems to imply a change in perspective. On one side we see different things, and only other side, those differences disappear.

Male + Female = the whole species

The differences disappear.

The whole species = male + female

Out of wholeness, differences appear. I wonder if this is a general rule... these signs we use... signify changes in perspective.

By this rule, the word "or" is a sign that gives equal potency to the objects. "And" means the potency is dependent on both objects appearing simultaneously... like with a co-signer on an account. This is change in perspective from the object itself to the greater pattern its a part of.

There are two meanings of "or": the inclusive sense, and the exclusive sense.

An example of the inclusive sense of "or" is, "the author of Tom Sawyer was called, "Mark Twain" or, "Samuel L. Clemens". (Sometimes we express this inclusive sense of "or" as, "and/or".

And example of the exclusive sense of "or" is: "You can marry Mabel, or Sally" The laws of bigamy prohibit marrying both. This sense of "or" is sometimes expressed as, X or Y, but not both X and Y.

Sorry, I lost you somewhere between the "logic gates", and "the change in perspective", and, by the time we got to "potency" I was completely in the dark.

Since you can interpret the exclusive "or" in terms of the inclusive, there is no necessity for distinguishing two senses*. I think Quine points this out somewhere. Since the standard symbol for the inclusive "or" is "v". An upside down "v", with the apex at the top is the conventional symbol of the exclusive "or". The truth table for the exclusive "or" is, FTTF.

* Of course, you can interpret all the rest of the connectors in terms of just one of them (anyone) and negation. And you can interpret all of them in terms of just one connector, the Sheffer stroke, which is really, just conjunction and negation combined (if I remember correctly).

Ummm.. sorry. A "logic gate" is an electronic apparatus that works like a gate. The gate requires certain conditions to be met in order for it to open. A gate has some number of pathways into it, usually two. What shows up on the pathways can be a 1 or a 0 (in the old days, 5 volts, or less than 1 volt) There's one pathway out of the gate.

An or-gate's output will be "1" if either or both of the inputs are "1"
An and-gate's output will be "1" only if both inputs are "1"

The part about perspectives is obscure. I like talking to you because you always make me think about explaining ideas I've never tried to explain before. Thanks!

Sorry but these laws of philosophy appear crazy to me, they both give the same intentions of alternatives so or is or. How does your explaination give reason to his question.

Yes, but then you argue against yourself. There is about as much need for xor as there is for any non-sheffer stroke "|".

And yes, you are correct about that. E.g. negation is p|p; neither p or p.

I knew about the gates, but not about the perspective and the rest.

I see. You can make the exclusive or-gate (like you can have an apple or an orange, but not both) with one or-gate, two and-gates and an inverter (turns the 1 to 0, and vice versa).

I think that shows that the exclusive or is a complex of simple "or", "and," and negation. If I had schematic drawing software, I could show you.

Very good but have you answered his question.

An atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Is the "or" in bold the inclusive "or" or the exclusive "or"?

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 12:06 AM ----------

I suspect that it's inclusive, but I suspect that Emil thinks that it's exclusive. How do we tell who is right?

Is the "or" in bold the inclusive "or" or the exclusive "or"?

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 12:06 AM ----------

I suspect that it's inclusive, but I suspect that Emil thinks that it's exclusive. How do we tell who is right?

Why would you think that anyone thinks it exclusive? It would not be like, a bank is a place on the side of a river, or a financial institution. That would be an exclusive "or". X disbelieves in God implies that X does not believe in God (although not conversely). That is why disbelieving in God is strong atheism, and not believing is weak atheism. So, you may both disbelieve in God, and not believe in God.