dfgiVej

Last Law-bearing Prophet sa 77
to deliver any apples and (2) not to deliver any more
sweets. Both of these statements are of an absolute
scope and do not allow for any exceptions. Suppose
the supplier were to logically combine the two
statements together. According to the faulty Ahmadī
logic, he would yield the following result:
[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more
sweet apples]
Based on the above conclusion, the supplier could
send the grocery store owner non-sweet apples
without violating his instructions.
This analysis is clearly flawed. When two rules are
combined, the resulting rule should satisfy the two
producing rules individually. However, according to
the erroneous rule produced above, the supplier
could deliver non-sweet apples. Non-sweet apples
are a subset of apples. Statement 1 said no apples, be
they sweet or non-sweet. The combination of the two
rules is not correct.
The accurate combination of the two rules is below:
[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = X
[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more
apples] + [No more sweets]
[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more] *
( [apples] + [sweets] )
[No more apples] + [No more sweets] = [No more
apples and no more sweets]
(The final statement can be rewritten as [no more
apples or sweets])