Ensuring Safe Hiking: The Importance of Ripe Berry and Grizzly Bear-Free Trails

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
The compound proposition is, "For hiking on the trail to be safe, it is necessary but not
sufficient that berries not be ripe along the trail and for grizzly bears not to have been seen in the area."

where:
p:Grizzly bears have been seen in the area.
q:Hiking is safe on the trail.
r:Berries are ripe along the trail.

I wrote my answer as (\neg r \wedge \neg p)\rightarrow q

But the answer is (q→(¬r∧¬p))∧¬((¬r∧¬p)→q)

I honestly don't see this as being the answer. Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bump.
 
Bashyboy said:
I wrote my answer as (\neg r \wedge \neg p)\rightarrow q
I read that as saying it is a sufficient condition: If no ripe berries and no bears seen then it is safe. For the necessity part, try rewording the given expression in the form "if ... then it is unsafe".
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
7K
2
Replies
71
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
10K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top