WTF?

If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 1

Anonymous

WTF? 2016-01-20 22:36:38 Post No. 7798289

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

WTF? 2016-01-20 22:36:38 Post No. 7798289

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

Represent the following statement forms using only statement variables, the connective -->, and the symbol for contradiction: c. Justify your answers with truth tables.

Please help this makes no fucking sense.

>>

>>7798289

>truth tables

Your school is shit.

>statement variables

>obfuscation terminology

Your school is really shitty.

>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products

Your school is a joke.

>>

>>7798307

>complaining about the use of truth tables in what is clearly the beginning of an introductory class

You are a joke

>>

>>7798307

>I have never taken a course in symbolic logic

>>

>>7798314

You should never see truth tables beyond day 1

>>

>>7798318

You are aware of the date, right?

>>

>>7798289

Bump

>>

>>7798307

>>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products

You are:

1) a retard.

2) an undergrad who doesn't know dick about categorical logic.

Everything else I agree with. Truth tables are okay at an intro level but they're deeply biased towards classical logic. "Statement variables" should be called propositions or 0-ary predicates.

>>7798318

Truth tables are a form of proof that is useful in highlighting the relationship between statements in a logic and their models. A clever student can convert truth tables into Eulerian diagrams and trivialize the majority of intro logic.

>>

>>7798318

Except you should.

>>

>>7798619

Me again, I got so caught up in criticizing that retard that I forgot about OP's question.

>>7798289

OP, what your professor is trying to get at is that implication and contradiction form a truth functionally complete set of connectives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_completeness#Introduction

>>

>>7798629

I don't understand

>>

>>7798289

1. x→y = ¬x∨y

2. ¬x∧¬y = ¬(x∨y)

=>

x∧y = ¬(¬x∨¬y)

= ¬(x→¬y)

x y x∧y ¬y (x→¬y) ¬(x→¬y)

0 0 | 0 1 1 0

0 1 | 0 0 1 0

1 0 | 0 1 1 0

1 1 | 1 0 0 1

Thread images: 1

Thread DB ID: 445200

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's