Logic

[MakiSupaStar]

Prove: ~(F&1L)
(s1) ~(T&U)
(f2) (~S v ~T) -> (~F v ~T)

~(~ST~F)V(~UF~T) by defn of conditional
(STFU)
(STFU) = (U)+(F&1L)

 

[DigMe]

oh, you wait until i get back, i'm going to give you a problem to solve, smart@$$!

Have I told you how funny you look with pants on?

bc

 

[Eric Perry]

Sigged.

DAMN! Beat me to it! Hahaha

Prove: ~(F&1L)
(s1) ~(T&U)
(f2) (~S v ~T) -> (~F v ~T)

~(~ST~F)V(~UF~T) by defn of conditional
(STFU)
(STFU) = (U)+(F&1L)

The win is strong with this one.

Have I told you how funny you look with pants on?

bc

LOL!!!

 

[NJL]

Have I told you how funny you look with pants on?

bc

ha! you weren't looking at the pants but the chorizo instead

 

[fdeck]

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)

Nice. I was thinking along these lines:

~(P&Q) -> ~(R&T) by DMT

By the way, all of this logic... are you guys doing this for philosophy, or engineering?

 

[NJL]

Nice. I was thinking along these lines:

~(P&Q) -> ~(R&T) by DMT

By the way, all of this logic... are you guys doing this for philosophy, or engineering?

my class is in the phil area, but it's ultimately for comp sci.. this class is crucial.

i love it.

hold me. LOL

 

[DigMe]

my class is in the phil area,

Dude...since when did you move to Pennsylvania?! I thought you were a loyal Texican!!

bc

 

[NJL]

Dude...since when did you move to Pennsylvania?! I thought you were a loyal Texican!!

bc

LOL you know what i mean, goober.

 

[NJL]

for brad:

Solve: P <-> Q
(p1) R > ~(S & T)
(p2) (P > Q) > ~~M
(p3) (~S v ~T) > (P > Q)
(p4) M > [(Q > P) v N]
(p5) ~N & R

It took me about 7 steps, smarty pants, lets see if you can do it in less..

 

[NJL]

for anyone else:

Solve: M & N
(p1) (M v T) v R
(p2) (R > P) & (T > Q)
(p3) ~P & ~Q
(p4) ~(T v ~N)

 

[NJL]

for beginners:

Solve: P & Q
(p1) [(P & Q) v R] v (T > M)
(p2) S > ~(T > M)
(p3) S > ~R
(p4) S

 

[NJL]

for maki:

Mind your P's & Q's

LOL

 

[MakiSupaStar]

for brad:

Solve: P <-> Q
(p1) R > ~(S & T)
(p2) (P > Q) > ~~M
(p3) (~S v ~T) > (P > Q)
(p4) M > [(Q > P) v N]
(p5) ~N & R

It took me about 7 steps, smarty pants, lets see if you can do it in less..

tQ=bc.

 

[popinfresh]

This is probably the smartest thread I've seen on TB in a long time.

Just to dumb it down a bit, where would you actually use these logic problems in real life or a professional setting?

 

[NJL]

This is probably the smartest thread I've seen on TB in a long time.

Just to dumb it down a bit, where would you actually use these logic problems in real life or a professional setting?

In computer programming for sure, syntax is different (different languages have different syntax anyway), but logic is logic with computer programming.. you can also assign the variables to actual sentences/statements to prove conclusions or even to derive whether or not certain statements are valid.

Also, in logic, we studied truth tables, deductive/inductive reasoning, identifying fallacies (really cool), and translating english into logical languages..

 

[MJ5150]

This is logical to me....

Invalid Link Removed

-Mike

 

[NJL]

c'mon, guys, this stuff is fun!!

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Don't they say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness...or maybe posting 6 times in a row on the same thread!!

 

[jokn388]

for anyone else:

Solve: M & N
(p1) (M v T) v R
(p2) (R > P) & (T > Q)
(p3) ~P & ~Q
(p4) ~(T v ~N)

I'll bite again

1) ~T & N p4
2) M v R p1, 1
3) N 1
4) (~R v P) & (~T v Q) p2
5) ~P p3
6) ~R p2, 5
7) M 2, 6
8) M & N 7,3

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Don't they say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness...or maybe posting 6 times in a row on the same thread!!

+1. I agree Brucey. If you're the only one holding up the thread Carlos, then you just have to accept the fact that the thread is fail.

EDIT: Did I just agree with Brucey?