@mods n/a

The OP has a similar question conditional on Trump getting the nom AND tweeting, so this market will probably resolve NO if he doesn’t get the nom. Would be good for OP to clarify, but I think it isn’t safe to bet otherwise

@IsaacKing If Trump is nominated by the Republican party, does this resolve NO or N/A?

@bohaska N/A

Now that we know Donald Trump tweeted, we can rule that out, so the question just becomes "Would Trump not be nominated by the Republican party?"

Seems to be trading awfully high.

@bohaska won't it resolve N/A if Trump is not nominated by the Republican party?

@AnT Would it? Or would it resolve as No?

I feel that if it were to resolve N/A if Trump is not nominated/nominated, then why would he make two markets?

@bohaska There’s no reason for it to resolve no. If we’re using the classical logic definition of the conditional, it would resolve true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional?wprov=sfti1. But here people usually NA questions where the condition fails. The question is definitely NOT “will Trump tweet AND not get the nomination.”

@Radicalia There is already a question opened by same user that is “will he get the nom AND tweet” so I think you are just wrong. In any case, the OP is the one who decides

@AdamTreat Where is that market? The other one that is linked is similarly a conditional.

@Radicalia What is the point of having the two diff questions if the conditional just resolves NA if not satisfied? Why not just have one question and be done with it? My guess/bet is the conditional matters and will resolve NO if the conditional is not met. Let’s wait for OP to clarify

@AdamTreat that's not how conditionals work. The title is clear, but op is not very active.

@AdamTreat One purpose would be to see whether the probability of the consequent is affected by the probability of the antecedent.

@Radicalia I maintain that “will trump tweet AND not get the nomination” is a perfectly valid way of interpreting the title and the only way to know what OP has in mind is for the them to clarify.

@AdamTreat I maintain that that is neither the common nor technical definition of a conditional.

@AdamTreat OP has resolved conditional markets NA in the past. https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/if-aella-has-her-first-beef-on-twit?r=UmFkaWNhbGlh

https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/if-someone-investigates-manifolds-a?r=UmFkaWNhbGlh

https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/conditional-on-manifold-providing-a?r=UmFkaWNhbGlh

If Aella has her first beef on Twitter, will she regret it a month later?

Resolved CANCEL. https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1627111553676853249 If she does not have the beef, this resolves N/A. Otherwise, if she provides a clear YES/NO answer, this market resolves based on that. (Even if it's not exactly a month later.) If she doesn't, I'll go by any suggestive posts she's made, or other compelling evidence I can find. If I really have no idea, I'll resolve this to 50%. Refers to a month after the end of the beef, not the beginning.

@Radicalia Ok, well we’re making our bets aren’t we:

if (not nominated)

return tweets;

else

return N/A

VS

return not nominated AND tweets

Title can be read both ways as evidenced by more than one person questioning. Good luck!

@AdamTreat I decided to sell my NO shares as after thinking about it I think the more likely intention of the author is as @Radicalia says
> One purpose would be to see whether the probability of the consequent is affected by the probability of the antecedent.