If P, Q, and R are propositions, 1) ((P -> Q) & (P -> R)) <=> (P -> (Q & R)). But let P = I have exactly one dollar. Q = I have enough money to buy a coffee. R = I have enough money to buy a pickle. and (1) fails (though in only one direction) under the English interpretation that, if, say, a coffee and pickle cost a dollar each, would make ((P -> Q) & (P -> R)) true but (P -> (Q & R)) false for the reason that I would need at least two dollars for (Q & R) to be true. What else is going on in this interpretation that makes (1) fail? I'm almost certain and is being used differently, but I think it might be some other things as well, like I referring to the same person and some assumptions about time, simultaneity, or such. Just thought I'd share. I think it's interesting but don't have time to think about it just now. Maybe someone else has an explanation? Can anyone make everything relevant explicit?