Script from JKR's reading

[kkersey_austin]

No: HPFGUIDX 156823


> Nikkalmati
> I can't agree with this analysis of the respective statements.  If
> "A  is true, then B is not true."
> From this statement you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not 
> true."

(Elisabet dusts off her mathematician hat)
Er, nope. The statement "P implies Q" *is* equivalent to "(Not Q)
implies (not P)". 

Applying this to the A's and B's of your formulation above, we get:
"If A is true, then B is false" is equivalent to "If B is not false,
then A is not true", which, after cleaning up a bit, is the same as
"If B is true, A is not true."  

QED. :-)

> It is still possible  to say "B is true and A is also true."  

Er, nope again. Because if A is true, then your statement above
assures us that B isn't. (But  "A is false and B is also false" is not
contradicted, so it is a possibility


The problem with Neri's argument isn't the logical structure, but the
truth of the premise: he believes that JKR confirmed that Rushdie's
"if-then" statement was correct; I strongly believe she did nothing of
the sort. She only addressed two specific points: first, confirming
that his specific opinion that "everything follows" from Snape being
good or evil is "correct" (and her echoing his word "opinion" is
pretty strong evidence that she was talking about that particular
statment, not Rushdie's entire theory); the other being her
contradicting one aspect of his theory by stating that DD is indeed dead. 

Nowhere in her answer do I see her addressing the truth of the
hypothetical "if then" regarding the connection between Snape being
good or evil and DD being alive or not. 

I know some (Neri for one) diagree with this interpretation, and the
confusion over the exact wording with the different transcripts
floating around further clouds the issue. I may change my mind after
seeing the video, but so far I feel pretty safe in assuming that
nothing she said addressed the truth of the statement in question.

> Nikkalmati
> I also believe that JKR was agreeing that everything follows from
> whether  SS  is good or bad.  I believe this statement is 
> prospective as in "everything that comes later follows from whether
> SS is good or bad"  not " what already happened on the Tower follows
> from whether  SS is good or bad."  But with JKR, who knows? 

I agree. "Everything" is ambiguous - and whether she meant it is
events in the plot or thematic issues that follow is unclear. Likely both.

Elisabet, wielding her logic Big Paddle*

*Way, way old TBAY allusion; I think the Harry and the Potters concert
tonight blasted some of my brain cells back a few years, sorry!