They are both equally bad. In both cases it is the arbitrary rule that is making inclusive-or seem to work, not the actual arithmetic. In both cases the rule breaks arithmetic so that addition and subtraction cannot be the inverse of each other.That's using the definition that 'zero is 0, anything non-zero is 1'.
I am not convinced by the 'zero is 0, and everything above zero is 1' definition.
Also, if you accept that the only numbers are 0 and 1, then you cannot really have a rule based on testing what the answer should have been.
The only valid way to map arithmetic onto two elements is GF(2). Multiplication is and, and both addition and subtraction are exclusive-or.
Inclusive-or can only be translated to arithmetic by equivalence.
Statistics: Posted by jojopi — Thu Sep 12, 2024 8:47 pm