no but hayley said that my statement will short circuit - which means that if you can get the answer for sure already, you don't need to evaluate the rest of the statement
so in my case:
"blaire is not the change and (dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town)"
if blaire is the change, then this is false, and there's no way the entire thing can be true, so it'll stop evaluating, so it'll just return false.
if blaire is not the change, then that part is true, but it still needs to evaluate the rest of it. we'll want to see if (dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town) is true (then the entire thing will return true). if dylan can only shrink people, then this is true, and since they're connected by an or, there's no need to look into if mitsu is town or not, so i would get true. if dylan can only shrink people is false, then we would need to see if the second part is true or not, but that would return me "cannot discern"
so, if my result is:
true - this means both blaire is not the change and dylan can only shrink people
false - this means blaire is the change (in this case we wouldn't be able to find out about dylan, but oh well)
cannot discern - blaire is not the change, and dylan cannot only shrink people
does that make sense....... MY HEART IS RACING AAAAA