Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The phrase "if and only if" (iff) is commonly used in the field of mathematics () and computer programming, as a conditional expression in classical (Boolean) logic.

Within that scope, it might not mean the same as a simple "if:"

If it rains, I will get wet.

I will get wet if it rains, but, there are numerous ways to get wet.

I will get wet, if and only if it rains.

Only rain, exclusively, can make me wet.

Do these distinctions apply in this way (example above), outside of the aforementioned domain?

share|improve this question
    
On a related note, I realized the other day that "and/or" in English (and in other natural languages) is used to represent logical inclusive or, since "or" is usually taken to be the exclusive or (this or that, but not both). –  Henrik N Mar 26 '11 at 17:56
1  
In normal writing I would usually punctuate it: I will get wet if, and only if, it rains. –  psmears Mar 26 '11 at 18:24
    
@Henrik N: Interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. Now you got me questioning all "logical operators" in the English language! Aaah! :p –  Leif Mar 26 '11 at 21:39
    
@psmears: True, it should probably be punctuated in normal writing :) –  Leif Mar 26 '11 at 21:41
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

When you say "if and only if" in regular conversation, you are taking the mathematical construction and applying it to a general life situation. So you can say "I will get wet if and only if it rains" and mean that:

If it is raining, I am wet.

AND:

If I am wet, it is raining.

(If either condition is met, the other is also met.)

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, that's what I thought. So, in general life situations, "I will get wet, if and only if it rains" also implies that there are no other possible ways to get wet? (Contra "if", which implicitly leaves room for other possible causes). Is the "if and only if" statement void if I get wet from somebody throwing a waterballon at me? :) –  Leif Mar 26 '11 at 21:48
    
That's right; If you get wet because of a water balloon and it's not raining, then your if-and-only-if statement was a false statement. (On the other hand, if someone hit you with a water balloon while it was raining on you, you'd still be okay.) –  Hellion Mar 26 '11 at 22:01
    
Thanks for the clear answer! You confirmed what I thought to be the case. You must be a programmer too? :p –  Leif Mar 26 '11 at 22:09
add comment

Yes, it does work (though it sounds a little technical) in common language because by saying:

I will get wet if and only if it rains.

you are saying both

I will get wet if it rains.

(meaning that if it rains there is no chance I will not be wet) and

I will get wet only if it rains.

(there is no way I will get wet unless it rains).

share|improve this answer
    
Okay, so I guess the term is a bit more "loose" when it comes to general life situations then :) –  Leif Mar 26 '11 at 21:36
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.