Thank you for pointing that out, I realize not only did I use the wrong language but I did not describe the situation accurately. I do need to address the situation where both variables E and F actually pass, that is the majority case, one or the other can fail, but there can never be a situation where E and F both fail. I do not know a specific term for that situation, but you are correct that mutual exclusivity is wrong. While I can generate a list of all possible combinations with the expand.grid function (which I am not committed to by the way), it would be very helpful if I could exclude the combinations where E and F both fail. I am not sure where to go from here, but the solution does not have to be elegant or even efficient because I do not need to scale higher than 6 variables.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:26 AM, S Ellison <s.elli...@lgcgroup.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.staff...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must be > false, and > > > vice versa, > > Question: Does 'vice versa' mean > a) "if E is False, F must be True" > or > b) "if F is True, E must be False"? > ... which are not the same. > > b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition "E > False, F False", which would not be addressed by the > pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E > > > > > ******************************************************************* > This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:13}} ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.