Recent content by lyd123

Hi, thank you Klaas, but I am finding it hard to come up with the steps needed that would work for any imbalanced syntax tree. I think all the rotations would be based off the operator in each node, and we have try to keep a node at each level. But how would this would in code e.g for normal...

The question asks you to balance a syntax tree. The first part is to describe the tree transformations needed to make it a complete tree. I've attached an example of the transformation. We will know its a compete tree if (heightOfShortestSubTree -heightOfTallestSubTree<=1). Normal...

Thank you, I understand now.If an argument was valid, how would we know? For example, in this case if the the original was S and the negated conclusion is ¬S ? 1.P∧(R⟹Q) Premise 2.(P∧Q)⟹¬S Premise 3.(P∧S)⟹R Premise 4.¬S Negated Conclusion

Makes perfect sense to me now!

Hi, the question and Ke logic rules are attached. This is my attempt at the question. $1. P \land (R\implies Q) $ Premise $2. ( P \land Q ) \implies \lnot S) $ Premise $3. ( P \land S) \implies R) $ Premise $4. \lnot S $...

Hi,how do I go about answering the attached question? I know that for a matrix to have no solution, there needs to be a contradiction in some row. Unique solutions is when m* ${x}_{3}$ =c , where m* ${x}_{3}$ $\ne$ 0. One way I tried was if a=0, then from row (1) : b* ${x}_{3}$ =2...

Thank you! I totally forgot that matrix multiplication isn't commutative.

Hi, I've a question that asks me to determine matrix A , where A= ${S}^{-1}$* B* S They have given matrices S and B in the question. I think the answer is A=B, since S * ${S}^{-1}$ would give me the identity matrix and anything multiplied by the identity matrix is itself. Is this correct?

Hello there, I am studying Taylor series, and in the slides given to us we calculated the taylor series of ln $(\frac{1+x}{1-x} )$ = ln(1 + x) − ln(1 − x), by using standard Taylor series of ln(1 + x). The notes then proceed to say : " It can be shown that every positive real number t can be...

I think I understand now.. so I should use (P⟹(Q ⟹ R ) ) ⟹ ((P⟹Q ) ⟹ R ) ), which would give me the attached truth table. So it is not a tautology. Is this correct?

Hello! The question is attached. I know that " $\implies $ " (implies) has precedence from right to left. But because " l- " appears after P$\implies ($Q $\implies$ R ), in my truth table do I evaluate:(P$\implies ($Q $\implies$ R ) ) $\implies$ ((P$\implies$Q ) $\implies$ R ) ) or...