confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

[Kuroshima]

Probably the best solution would have been to use neither/nor instead of either/or. Just adds two characters, and I think makes it much clearer...

no Path skill can ever exceed Neither the caster’s Thaumatology skill Nor (12 + Magery level)

Now, I think that this isn't proper style, as the the style guide, and might even not be completely correct, but it's clearer.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Probably the best solution would have been to use neither/nor instead of either/or. Just adds two characters, and I think makes it much clearer...



Now, I think that this isn't proper style, as the the style guide, and might even not be completely correct, but it's clearer.

Neither/nor seems to be a proper form for writing (not A && not B) using informal language. Why would it be wrong?

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Neither/nor seems to be a proper form for writing (not A && not B) using informal language. Why would it be wrong?

Not a native English speaker, but IMHO, there are too many negations in the sentence

No Path skill can exceed neither the caster’s Thaumatology nor (12+magery)

Now, rewriting it to

Path skills can exceed neither the caster’s Thaumatology nor (12+magery)

makes it far clearer, but remember, it's not a standalone sentence, you must remember that there is another proposition in the sentence, and using this formulation makes the text heavier

Thaumatology is a prerequisite for any Path skill, and no Path skill can ever exceed either the caster’s Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery level);

is certainly easier to read than

Thaumatology is a prerequisite for any Path skill, and Path skills can exceed neither the caster’s Thaumatology skill nor (12 + Magery level);

[PK]

Your Path skill levels cannot exceed your Thaumatology level.

Your Path skill levels cannot exceed (12 + your Magery level).

Path <= min(Thaumatology, 12+Magery)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Your Path skill levels cannot exceed your Thaumatology level.

Your Path skill levels cannot exceed (12 + your Magery level).

Path <= min(Thaumatology, 12+Magery)

This is not the statement in the original quote. The original quote had an or statement. By breaking into two sentences you made it into an and statement.

If the new wording was the intent, I suppose it could be errat'ed.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This is not the statement in the original quote. The original quote had an or statement. By breaking into two sentences you made it into an and statement.

If the new wording was the intent, I suppose it could be errat'ed.

Hell, you could put it in the uFAQ or in the oFAQ, Vicky

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Hell, you could put it in the uFAQ or in the oFAQ, Vicky

Doing that on a whim would be abuse of power. Though it will get into uFAQ if it becomes a genuinely semi-frequent question, and oFAQ if the fora will be flooded by it. :) Let's see how it goes.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This is not the statement in the original quote. The original quote had an or statement. By breaking into two sentences you made it into an and statement.

If the new wording was the intent, I suppose it could be errat'ed.

No, the original quote was a 'Not (A or B)' statement, which is logically the same exact thing as a 'Not A AND Not B' statement. He simply clarified it in his post, even though it is already clear to some of us.

[vicky_molokh]

Edit: it seems I misunderstood a bit, and muddled the water even worse.

Originally Posted by Langy

No, the original quote was a 'Not (A or B)' statement, which is logically the same exact thing as a 'Not A AND Not B' statement. He simply clarified it in his post, even though it is already clear to some of us.

Original version of my post (see below how I got that wrong):

Spoiler:  

Err, no, parsing doesn't work like that. Here's why:

First, let's look at the check (A or B). We'll say that C=(A or B), and use that later. If A is true, then (A or B) is true. If B is true, then (A or B) is true. If both are true, (A or B) is true. If both are false, and that is only if A==false AND B==false, then (A or B)==false.

Now now, the Not. Obviously if C==(A or B), then Not (A or B) is the same as Not C. Well, guess what, C is false only if (A==false AND B==false). (Not C) is true if and only if C is false. So, Not (A or B) == Not C == (Not A) AND (Not B).

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So, Not (A or B) == Not C == (Not A) AND (Not B).

Er, that's exactly what I said and you quoted. Not (A or B) == (Not A) AND (Not B). I just forgot to add parenthesis - I was not saying Not (A AND (Not B)), and this should have been obvious since the correct interpretation is much simpler, but I guess it wasn't.