Not logically necessary ; esp: empirical

I'm not sure I follow, Jack. What is the main entry?

- A.

Good Morning, Avangi.

It's "contingent".

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent

As I recall, "logically" one distinguishes between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. A rain storm is a sufficient condition for the street's being wet, but not a necessary one. That is, someone may have hosed it down.
So your formula is missing something. A is not necessary for B, from an emperical point of view.
(I think Jim is into this stuff. I'm real

Okay, not logically necessary but empirically true.

"Constant conjunction" seems to ring a bell. We know from experience (trial and error) that whenever we have A, B also shows up. We have no idea why. There's no logical reason why it should.
B is contingent on A, but B is not the "necessary" result of A in the logical sense.
Yo

Hi

AvangiA is not necessary for B, from an emperical point of view.

How would you differentiate between 'empirical point of view' and 'logical point of view'? I would say even from logical point of view B is not solely dependent upon A. Please guide me.

Sorry, Jack, I answered this at some length a day or two ago and somehow booted it. I didn't have the spirit to start over. I'll get back to it!

No problems.

Avangiand somehow booted it.

Does "booted" here mean to mess up, make an error,...? Please let me know.

Yes. That's accurate. "Fumbled" might be a synonym.

In this case I actually lost the whole thing. I was working from a note pad so I wouldn't lose it, and I did anyway!

AvangiI was working from a note pad so I wouldn't lose it, and I did anyway!

Please don't b

Irretrievably?