I don't know if this is the right place where to post.
Consider this statement: "the only reason of A is B"
Is this statement equivalent to A->B or to A<->B (that means A->B and B->A)?
For example: suppose that it is true that "the only reason why an avalanche happens in a certain montain is that somebody skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place"
Suppose you are told that your friend Mike just skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place. Would you deduct that an avalanche happend?
Suppose you are told that an avalanche in that montain happened. Would you deduct that somebody skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place?
If you would deduct only the second one then you think that "the only reason of A is B" is equivalent to A->B (as I do); if you would deduct both the first one and the second one then you think that "the only reason of A is B" is equivalent to A<->B.
I'm asking you guys because I spoke with a mathematician friend who studies mathematical logic and he says that he would deduct both the first and the second one because he thinks the statement is equivalent to A<->B
I was thinking that it is useless to continue exerciting in CR questions before I still have doubts like this.
So, guys, please help me!
Other two questions: are "the reason of A is B", "the only reason of A is B", "A is caused by B" all equivalent in your opinion?
and if I say "one of the reasons of A is B" does this mean "among all Cs such that A->C there is B"?
Consider this statement: "the only reason of A is B"
Is this statement equivalent to A->B or to A<->B (that means A->B and B->A)?
For example: suppose that it is true that "the only reason why an avalanche happens in a certain montain is that somebody skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place"
Suppose you are told that your friend Mike just skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place. Would you deduct that an avalanche happend?
Suppose you are told that an avalanche in that montain happened. Would you deduct that somebody skied in that montain on the fresh snow in a risky place?
If you would deduct only the second one then you think that "the only reason of A is B" is equivalent to A->B (as I do); if you would deduct both the first one and the second one then you think that "the only reason of A is B" is equivalent to A<->B.
I'm asking you guys because I spoke with a mathematician friend who studies mathematical logic and he says that he would deduct both the first and the second one because he thinks the statement is equivalent to A<->B
I was thinking that it is useless to continue exerciting in CR questions before I still have doubts like this.
So, guys, please help me!
Other two questions: are "the reason of A is B", "the only reason of A is B", "A is caused by B" all equivalent in your opinion?
and if I say "one of the reasons of A is B" does this mean "among all Cs such that A->C there is B"?
