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!
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top