Set Theory and Predicate Calculus?

thename1000
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Set Theory and Predicate Calculus (12 points)
Given: P ⊆ Q
Q ⊆ (S ∩ T)
S ⊆ (R ∪ T^c)
x(sub)1 ∈ P
Use predicate calculus to prove x(sub)1 ∈ R.

Studying for a test but I don't have this worked out for me. I honestly don't even know where to start. I know what union, intersect, etc and all the symbols mean I'm just bad at the Predicate Calculus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you need help from someone who knows that particular textbook.
 
g_edgar said:
I think you need help from someone who knows that particular textbook.

Oh really its that specific? :( too bad
 
Nah, I might be able to help. I will look at it after class.

Why not start by drawing a picture (e.g., a Venn diagram) to see what a model of these sentences must look like? I find that pictures are especially helpful at suggesting proofs by contradiction.
 
thename1000 said:
Set Theory and Predicate Calculus (12 points)
Given: P ⊆ Q
Q ⊆ (S ∩ T)
S ⊆ (R ∪ T^c)
x(sub)1 ∈ P
Use predicate calculus to prove x(sub)1 ∈ R.

Studying for a test but I don't have this worked out for me. I honestly don't even know where to start. I know what union, intersect, etc and all the symbols mean I'm just bad at the Predicate Calculus.

If x_1\in P then, by the first line, x_1\in Q. By the second line x_1\in S and in T. By the third line then, x_1\in R or x_1\in T^c. But since x_1\in T, it can't be in T^c. Therefore x_1\in R.

Now all you have to do is express that in predicate calculus!
 
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...
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.

Similar threads

Back
Top