Monroe->/Tipiwanee Clarification

[leslie7]

(Sorry, I did a search on "Monroe" and didn't find anything so I started a new topic instead. )

pg. 217, chapt 6 of 2021 ed. LRB.

"On two fictional or little-known cities such as "You are either in Monroe or in Tipiwanee", without being provided further info about these cities, we could only diagram for the "either/or" term. A Diagram that attempts to reflect geographical knowledge such as M->T would not apply since we cannot be sure that M and T do not overlap geographically.

To clarify, the textbook is saying that M->/T is not an accurate representation of the relationship

"further info about these cities, we could only diagram for the "either/or" term" what does we could only diagram for the either/or term mean?

Would the proper diagram look like this?
/M->T
/T->M
(to represent that possibly both cities could be visited at the same time?) or would we not be able to diagram it at all since we dont know anything?

[Adam Tyson]

Your diagram of that relationship is correct, leslie7! When presented with a rule that either A or B must occur, we can conclude that if A does not occur then B must occur, and vice versa. If not A, then B, and if not B, then A. In this case, if you are not in Monroe then you must be in Tipiwanee, and if you are not in Tipiwanee, you must be in Monroe.

This diagram does allow for the possibility of being in both places at once, if they overlap, but it does not require that any such overlap occur.