Probably pretty simple for ya'll but

  • Thread starter Thread starter kshan5
  • Start date Start date
kshan5
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So I just got out of my intro to logic final at UMass and there was one question I just couldn't solve, and I'd like to know how. Anyways, here it is,

1. ∀xFx V ∀xGx
2. Show: ∀x(Fx V Gx)


I did 90% of the exam in a half hour, then spent the next hour on this alone and couldn't really get that close. Anyways, just really curious how you'd go about doing it.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Show how? By using the quantifier's semantic definitions or were you asked to use a particular proof system? Anyway, in the former, here's a hint: what must happen for the conclusion to be false?
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top