MHB Help with Logic Questions | 65 Characters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Plonker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user seeking help with logic homework after missing class due to illness. They provide their answers to four logic questions and request feedback on their correctness. Respondents analyze each answer, pointing out logical connections, clarifying terms, and suggesting improvements in reasoning and notation. Key points include the importance of understanding logical connectives and proper formulation of statements. Overall, the user is encouraged to refine their answers based on the feedback provided.
Plonker1
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi there, I desperately need your help :P

I was very ill for the past week and missed out on class time when we were taught the content. I attempted the homework questions but because I've had to breeze through the content I'm not sure if I have answered all the questions correctly or as well as I could have. Could you please review my four questions and inform me of the correct answers if I'm wrong?

Your help is VERY appreciated.

Questions: Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

View attachment 6457

My Answers:

1.
a) ¬a ∧ u ⇒ h
b) a ∧ u ⇔ h
c) a ⇒ ¬h ⊕ ¬a ⇒ h

2.
a) He does not speak or she does not jump
b) He speaks and she does not jump
c) Because he spoke she did not jump?

3.
a) I'm fine with this
b) Yes it is represented by p ⇒ q ⇒ r

4.
a) i. If all succeeds do not read the instructions. This is equivalent to p.
ii. Read the instructions only if all else fails
b) I'm fine with this
 

Attachments

  • logicq.png
    logicq.png
    48.7 KB · Views: 110
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Plonker said:
b) a ∧ u ⇔ h
The sentence says, "If it's against the rules...". Therefore, the formula must have the form $$a\Rightarrow\ldots$$. Second, "$$p$$ only if $$q$$" means the converse of "$$p$$ if $$q$$". The latter means $$q\Rightarrow p$$ (the part after "if" is the premise and is therefore located to the left of $$\Rightarrow$$); so "$$p$$ only if $$q$$" is $$p\Rightarrow q$$. Taken together, "$$p$$ if $$q$$" and "$$p$$ only if $$q$$" form "$$p$$ if and only if $$q$$", i.e., $$p\Leftrightarrow q$$ (I am saying this simply for information; the equivalence is not used in (b)).

Plonker said:
c) a ⇒ ¬h ⊕ ¬a ⇒ h
Here "but" is a synonym of "and". I am not sure how your course denotes conjunction, but usually it is denoted by $$\land$$, $$\&$$ or it is simply skipped like multiplication, as in $$pq$$. The symbol $$\oplus$$ usually denotes exclusive OR. Second, conjunction, just like multiplication, usually has the strongest precedence after negation, just like multiplication binds stronger than addition. So I would write the formula as $$(a\Rightarrow\neg h)\land(\neg a\Rightarrow h)$$.

Plonker said:
2.
a) He does not speak or she does not jump
b) He speaks and she does not jump
c) Because he spoke she did not jump?
I agree with a) and b). Concerning c), "because" is at best a complicated logical connective quite unlike others (AND, OR, etc.), and at worst it is not a connective at all. So I wouldn't worry about it. A good textbook should not include such question.

Plonker said:
3.
a) I'm fine with this
b) Yes it is represented by p ⇒ q ⇒ r
The question asks: what does p ⇒ q ⇒ r mean: p ⇒ (q ⇒ r), (p ⇒ q) ⇒ r or something else? You can't answer p ⇒ q ⇒ r because that's what the question is about in the first place. I claim that the solution method means neither p ⇒ (q ⇒ r) nor (p ⇒ q) ⇒ r, but rather that $2x-6=0$ implies $2x=6$, and it in turn implies $x=3$.

Plonker said:
4.
a) i. If all succeeds do not read the instructions. This is equivalent to p.
Please explain how you came up with this and why you think it is equivalent. Start by defining the inverse. Note that the negation of "all else fails" is "something else works".

Plonker said:
ii. Read the instructions only if all else fails
I disagree. As I said,
\[
\text{"$$p$$ only if $$q$$" is }p\Rightarrow q.\qquad(*)
\]
The statement $p$ has the form "all else fails $\Rightarrow$ you read the instructions". Now use the fact (*) to write it as a formula.

Plonker said:
b) I'm fine with this
The problem does nort ask whether you are fine with the answer; it asks to justify it. Note that $p\Rightarrow q$ is equivalent to $\neg p\lor q$.

For the future, please read forum http://mathhelpboards.com/rules/.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top