MHB Rewrite the following sentence as a formal proposition.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Henry R
  • Start date Start date
Henry R
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I have a question here. I hope I'm not doing anything wrong here. So, we go!

"If I eat apples, then I will not eat durian, and if I eat durians, then I will not eat rambutans, and if I eat rambutans, then I will not eat apples, but I will surely eat either apples, durians or rambutans."

Let G =" I eat apples" , B ="I eat durians" , P = "I eat rambutans".

I have to rewrite the sentences as a formal proposition. Can you guys give your opinion on how to solve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Henry R said:
I have a question here. I hope I'm not doing anything wrong here. So, we go!

"If I eat apples, then I will not eat durian, and if I eat durians, then I will not eat rambutans, and if I eat rambutans, then I will not eat apples, but I will surely eat either apples, durians or rambutans."

Let G =" I eat apples" , B ="I eat durians" , P = "I eat rambutans".

I have to rewrite the sentences as a formal proposition. Can you guys give your opinion on how to solve this?

I would go with the following:
$$(G\to \neg B) \land (B\to \neg P) \land (P\to \neg G) \land (G\lor B\lor P).$$
 
Ackbach said:
I would go with the following:
$$(G\to \neg B) \land (B\to \neg P) \land (P\to \neg G) \land (G\lor B\lor P).$$

Good!
 

Thread 'Roulette wheel physics and probability'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'

The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Rewrite as a formal proposition
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Conditional Probability, Independence, and Dependence
Replies
10
Views
2K
MHB Find truth value of propositions
Replies
17
Views
2K
I [(Linear) Temporal Logic] Are the given sentences consistent or not?
Replies
8
Views
2K
MHB Calculating Truth Tables for Propositions
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Regarding dominated convergence theorem in Folland
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Ways to put n balls in m boxes such that exactly k boxes are empty?
Replies
29
Views
3K
MHB Differentials/Total Derivatives in R^n .... Browder, Proposition 8.12 ....
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB How to give a proof of tautologies?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Can You Still Be Considered a Vegetarian If You Occasionally Eat Meat?
Replies
22
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top