“A is sufficient for a condition that is necessary for B” implies “B is sufficient for a condition that is necessary for A”.
Does this seem transparent to you? I mean by that, is the truth of the statement obvious? Does it seem true?
A long time ago, someone called Achilles Grytpype-Thynne (a riff on a Goonshow character?) responded to this statement after I posted it on a message board as an example of an implication that isn't immediately obvious. But to Achilles it was, and he explained why. It remains one of the few examples of a fast, non-googleable and marvellously modest yet intelligent responses I've had in all of my dialogues.
Let me know what you think.
It isn't immediately obvious to me because I had to furrow my eyebrows and think really hard just to understand what it was saying.
ReplyDeleteFair enough! This has been the consensus.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete