Logic: !(E == "fail" & F == "fail) <==>
(E == "pass" | F == "pass") -- Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Sarah Goslee <sarah.gos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given that clarification, I'd just generate the full set and remove > the ones you aren't interested in, as in: > > > scenarios <- expand.grid(A = c("pass", "fail"), B = c("pass", "fail"), C = > c("pass", "fail"), D = c("pass", "fail"), E = c("pass", "fail"), F = > c("pass", "fail")) > > > scenarios <- subset(scenarios, !(E == "fail" & F == "fail)) > > Sarah > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, R Stafford <rod.staff...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > ______________________________________________ > 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. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ 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.