Recent content by lazycritic

So if I use x when all these instructions tell me to use 'n' or 'k', it shouldn't matter?

Hi, I'm trying to figure out my TI-89. So I want to estimate the 40th partial sum of this series: Sum(40) of (-1^(k+1))/k^4, starting at k=1. My major problem is that I want to use 'k's or 'n's, not 'x's. Is there a difference? I haven't asked my Calc teacher about this yet, but I know that...

Bump. Anyone mind checking these?

Hey, I'm a bit stoned right now so this might come off weird. Do you think that there are different levels of consciousness, and that certain people are subtly higher on those levels? Do sometimes feel like the people around you are sheep? I know that certain people seem smarter, more...

Marijuana shouldn't be illegal. The prohibition is ridiculous, and I think (hope) my generation will be the one to fix it. It should be regulated, of course, but most of the marijuana smokers I know are extremely intelligent. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Einstain smoked marijuana - it...

I think I got the next problem, a theorom, but if anyone can look over it, I'd appreciate it. 4) |- ~Ex(Fx & ~Fx) 1. | ~[~Ex(Fx & ~Fx)] H(for con) - that how would I say I'm hypothesizing for a contradition? 2. | Ex(Fx & ~Fx) 1, DN 3. | Fa & ~Fa 2, E Elim.(tex would be...

Simple question. In the past fifty years philosophy seems to have become increasingly irrelevant, as philosophers beat the same dead horse of the classic "philosophical problems: time, God, consciousness, free will, ect. Have we made any advancements? Do those advancements matter? Are we just...

How do I post a new thread in the Religion forum? That's some pretty harsh censorship. What's the point of discussing religion if discussion of certain sects is verboten? Godless spirituality is cool, but it's a topic that's linked very closely with the religious themes and sects of the...

Nietzsche(always forget that pesky s). Close second is Kierkegaard. Logical syllogisms and categorical statements? Pah! EDIT: *chuckles* Sorry. Wasn't paying any attention - I don't know many living philosophers. Let me see...not Derrida. Heh. Look into Nozick. He's kinda famous. I hated...

Hey, If anyone here likes working on these problems, I'm working on a couple more. I finished the first two. These go: 1. Vx Vy (Fxy ---> ~Fyx) |- -ExFxx (now my work - maybe wrong 2. Vy (Fay ---> ~Fya) 1,VE 3. (Faa ---> ~Faa) 2,VE 4. | Faa...

I did manage to get #4 right before I left for class. It's just: 4.|- ExFx v Ax ~Fx 1. | ~ExFx 2. | Ax ~Fx 1, QE 3. ~ExFx ---> Ax ~Fx 1-2 -->I 4. ~~ExFx v Ax ~Fx 3, MI 5. ExFx v Ax ~Fx That double negation might've been what you were hinting at. I was having trouble figuring...

Anyhow, thanks for the help. Might've gotten the last one, but I'm heading off to class now. Serves me right for procrastinating. :rolleyes:

According to your definitions, those problems look like: 3. ~Ex EyLxy |-Ax ~Lxx (close to the same thing) 4.|- ExFx v Ax ~Fx (looks like my post had a typo - no negation on the first existential quantifier) Thanks, btw. Pretty sure I got the first one. I have: 2. Fa AE 3. |...

Hell, all these are hard. The next ones are: 3. -](makeshift particular quantifier)x]yLxy |- Vx-Lxx Quantifier exchange...but how do I get rid of the y? 4. |- ]xFx v Vx-Fx Theorom...

I'm also studying predicate logic, and I can't say I'm hugely comfortable with propositional logic. Here's a problem I'm working on right now: V(universal quantifier)xFx |- VxGx--->Vx(Fx & Gx) Having trouble getting started. Due in two hours. I know that I should hypothesize...