- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mar 21, 2022
- Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:32 am
#94746
Hi there,
The false not-block inferences page reads that "B is not inspected the day before C is inspected. C cannot be inspected second." Below that it mentions that there are 2 common errors that occur. The first error is that people assume B cannot be inspected in the first slot. The explanation proceeds by stating that "these students erroneously act as if the BC relationship is a regular (or positive) block: because C cannot be inspected second, if BC was a regular block, then B could not be inspected first."
I'm assuming that the whole "regular (positive)" language is referring to how the BC block is negative in this instance, unlike a normal positive block. I don't understand this explanation. If another one could be provided that would be wonderful as I'm still struggling to understand why it is incorrect to assume that B cannot be inspected first if C cannot be second....perhaps this is the answer to my own question as I am thinking about the question while I type... would B be allowed to go in 1 and then apply the BC not-block /C not law (aka no putting C in position 2) and then C would have to go somewhere in or between spots 3-6 given the information provided?
Perhaps a further explanation of the difference between a regular block and a not-block and the relationship/result it would create say if BC were a regular block vs BC being a not-block would be helpful?
The false not-block inferences page reads that "B is not inspected the day before C is inspected. C cannot be inspected second." Below that it mentions that there are 2 common errors that occur. The first error is that people assume B cannot be inspected in the first slot. The explanation proceeds by stating that "these students erroneously act as if the BC relationship is a regular (or positive) block: because C cannot be inspected second, if BC was a regular block, then B could not be inspected first."
I'm assuming that the whole "regular (positive)" language is referring to how the BC block is negative in this instance, unlike a normal positive block. I don't understand this explanation. If another one could be provided that would be wonderful as I'm still struggling to understand why it is incorrect to assume that B cannot be inspected first if C cannot be second....perhaps this is the answer to my own question as I am thinking about the question while I type... would B be allowed to go in 1 and then apply the BC not-block /C not law (aka no putting C in position 2) and then C would have to go somewhere in or between spots 3-6 given the information provided?
Perhaps a further explanation of the difference between a regular block and a not-block and the relationship/result it would create say if BC were a regular block vs BC being a not-block would be helpful?
