Logic

NJL · #1 07-21-2009, 10:04 PM

Prove: ~(R&T)
(p1) ~(P&Q)
(p2) (~P v ~Q) -> (~R v ~T)

Have at it..

Digme, where are you?

fdeck · #2 07-21-2009, 10:07 PM

I'm good at logic, but have forgotten the standard symbols. Is it like this:

v = OR
& = AND
~ = NOT

fdeck · #3 07-21-2009, 10:09 PM

On second thought, DeMorgan's Theorem on the two sides of (p2).

NJL · #4 07-21-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdeck

I'm good at logic, but have forgotten the standard symbols. Is it like this:

v = OR
& = AND
~ = NOT

yes

NJL · #5 07-21-2009, 10:15 PM

this class is kicking my butt.. the final won't be comprehensive, just a bunch of these..

logic in general has been life changing, it's great, i even dumped my GF because of it

LOL

Sterling_Bass · #6 07-21-2009, 10:34 PM

Did you really, NJL?

NJL · #7 07-21-2009, 10:42 PM

haha, yeah, just in spite LOL

now back to logic..

fdeck · #8 07-22-2009, 06:22 AM

Hint: Look up DeMorgan's Law.

geeza · #9 07-22-2009, 06:56 AM

Now I remember why I dropped that class.

jokn388 · #10 07-22-2009, 07:05 AM

Prove: ~(R&T)
(p1) ~(P&Q)
(p2) (~P v ~Q) -> (~R v ~T)

~(~PV~Q)V(~RV~T) by defn of conditional
(P&Q)V(~RV~T)
(~RV~T) since (P&Q) is a contradiction of p1
~(R&T)

DigMe · #11 07-22-2009, 07:35 AM

Trying to teach NJL logic is like trying to teach a chimp to wear pants - everyone laughs but the chimp doesn't get it so much.

bc

MakiSupaStar · #12 07-22-2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigMe

Trying to teach NJL logic is like trying to teach a chimp to wear pants - everyone laughs but the chimp doesn't get it so much.

bc

Sigged.

bulldogbassist · #13 07-22-2009, 08:24 AM

Wow. And I'm taking this class next semester!!!

T-Bird · #14 07-22-2009, 09:00 AM

Hi.

LOGIC?

Well...

A rabbit is hopping around in the forest with a dilemma, a huge one.
He has just recently heard a new word and is clueless what it means.

Along comes a fox, and seeing that the fox has his stomach full, the rabbit pops the question that has been bugging him for days.

Rabbit: Hey fox my friend, could You explain logic to me please?

Fox: Well, its kinda hard to eplain, but I'll use an example. Do You have matches?

Rabbit: Yes I do.

Fox: Then You must be a smoker, right? That's logic.

Rabbit: Yes I am, but I... umm...well... still don't get it.

Fox: Let's try another one then, do You like booze?

Rabbit: Sure thing I do.

Fox: When You're drinking, you like to go to the dances, right?

Rabbit: Sure I do.

Fox: While drinking and dancing, You like to check out the female rabbits too? Cop a little feel, accidental bumping, that sort of stuff?

Rabbit: Well, yes I do that sometimes (blushing a bit).

Fox: After dancing a bit You like to take one or two fluffy-tails to your place for some after party fun and games.

Rabbit: (blushing quite heavily now) Yes, I guess do that too sometimes, that's the whole point of it, right?

Fox: Yep it is my friend, and at Your pad, you then do what rabbits do, right?

Rabbit: Sure thing I do bro (blushing now up to the tips of his ears).

Fox: That, my furry friend, that's logic.

Rabbit: Thanks a million fox, now I get it.

The rabbit rushes on, anxious to share his new knowledge and all of a sudden the grizzly from next door shows up.

Rabbit: Hey grizzly my friend, how is it hanging?

Grizzly: Not bad mate, not bad at all.

Rabbit: I just learned a new word, logic, do You know what it means?

Grizzly: No idea. What does it mean?

Rabbit: Well it's kind of hard to explain, but I give You an example: Do You have matches?

Grizzly: Nope.

Rabbit: Well, then You won't get it up either.

Regards
Sam

NJL · #15 07-22-2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdeck

Hint: Look up DeMorgan's Law.

oh, i already could solve that one

these are the only rules we are using:

MP
MT
DS
HS
Conj
Simp
Demorgans (DEM)
Double Neg (DN)
ME
Dist

have to go to my next class..

NJL · #16 07-22-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jokn388

Prove: ~(R&T)
(p1) ~(P&Q)
(p2) (~P v ~Q) -> (~R v ~T)

~(~PV~Q)V(~RV~T) by defn of conditional
(P&Q)V(~RV~T)
(~RV~T) since (P&Q) is a contradiction of p1
~(R&T)

let me look at that one when i get back so i can present it in a different way