I converting conditional statements into logical notation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on converting conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers. Participants explore the implications of statements regarding the set A, such as its cardinality and the concept of a singleton. Clarifications are made about the meaning of the empty set being a member of A versus being a subset. Suggestions are provided to refine the logical expressions, emphasizing the need to avoid free variables and clarify notation. The conversation highlights the nuances of set theory and logical representation in mathematical contexts.
dabige1010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i need to covert the following conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers:

a) A has at most one element


b)A is a singleton


c)ø ∈ A

you don't have to give me the answers, just help me get started or give me some hints
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dabige1010 said:
i need to covert the following conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers:

a) A has at most one element
Think of the cardinality of A.

b)A is a singleton
What is a singleton? Suppose A has two elements; what can you say about these elements?
c)ø ∈ A
This says "the empty set is a member of A." This doesn't make sense, to me; don't you mean "the empty set is a subset of A?"

you don't have to give me the answers, just help me get started or give me some hints[/QUOTE]
 
this is what I've come up with:

a) ∀x(x ∈ A → (x⇔ø v x ⇔ n))

b) ∀z(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)

C) i didnt mistype, "ø ∈ A" is what the question said. i guess it's just a typo by the prof.

let me know what you think of the two answers i do have though.

thanks a lot!
 
ø ∈ A is quite sensible; it's used in the canonical set-theoretic construction of Peano arithmetic, for example. But I'm not sure what you'd need to do to rewrite it.

dabige1010 said:
a) ∀x(x ∈ A → (x⇔ø v x ⇔ n))

b) ∀z(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)

These have free variables, which I don't think you want. For the first one, I'd expect something like ∃n∀x (x ∈ A → x=n). Also, I'm not at all sure what you intend by "x⇔ø", which is surely not the same as your use of the double arrow in the second formula.
 
CRGreathouse said:
ø ∈ A is quite sensible; it's used in the canonical set-theoretic construction of Peano arithmetic, for example.

Fair enough. So; what does it mean?
 
cristo said:
Fair enough. So; what does it mean?

"The empty set is a member of A", what else? You might use the following definitions for numbers, for example:

0 = ø
S(n) = n U {n}

So that
1 = {ø} U ø = {0}
2 = {0} U {{0}} = {0, {0}} = {0, 1}
3 = {0, 1} U {{0, 1}} = {0, 1, 2}
. . .

"ø is a subset of A" is true for all sets A, but "ø is a member of A" is true for only some A. "ø ∈ ø" is false, for example; nothing is in the empty set, not even the empty set.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K