MHB Rewrite the following sentence as a formal proposition.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Henry R
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on rewriting a complex conditional statement about eating fruits as a formal proposition. The original statement involves three variables: eating apples (G), durians (B), and rambutans (P), with specific conditions linking them. A proposed formal representation is given as $$(G\to \neg B) \land (B\to \neg P) \land (P\to \neg G) \land (G\lor B\lor P).$$ This formulation captures the relationships and exclusions among the three fruits while ensuring that at least one is consumed. The conversation emphasizes clarity in translating informal language into formal logical expressions.
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!
 
Greetings, I am studying probability theory [non-measure theory] from a textbook. I stumbled to the topic stating that Cauchy Distribution has no moments. It was not proved, and I tried working it via direct calculation of the improper integral of E[X^n] for the case n=1. Anyhow, I wanted to generalize this without success. I stumbled upon this thread here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-prove-the-cauchy-distribution-has-no-moments.992416/ I really enjoyed the proof...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
4K