MHB Translate the statements into set inclusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey!

I am looking at the following:

translate the following statements into set inclusion.
(i) Those who drown are not a fish or a swimmer.
(ii) Scientists are human.
(iii) A person who is not a swimmer is a non-swimmer.
(iv) Fish are not human.
(v) There was a case of a drowned mathematician.
(vi) Mathematicians are scientists.

Check if from the statements (i)–(vi)
,,There was a mathematician who was not a swimmer”
can be implied.
I have done the following:

We consider the sets:
E =Set of drowning, F = Set of Fish, S = Set of swimmers, N = Scientists, H = Human, M = Mathematiker

We have then the following:
(i) $x\in E\rightarrow x\notin (F\cup S)$
(ii) $N\subseteq H$ i.e. $x\in N\rightarrow x\in H$
(iii) $x\in H : x\notin S \rightarrow x\in S^c$
(iv) $F\not\subseteq H$
(v) $\exists x \in (E\cap M)$
(vi) $M\subseteq N$

Is everything correct so far? Could I improve something?

The statement ,,There was a mathematician who was not a swimmer” could be formulated as followes, or not? $$\exists x\in M : x\in S^c$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
(iv) $F\not\subseteq H$
Hey mathmari!

There can still be a fish that is a human, can't it? 🤔

Everything else looks correct to me, although I'm used to seeing $\forall$ in front of them.

The statement ,,There was a mathematician who was not a swimmer” could be formulated as followes, or not? $$\exists x\in M : x\in S^c$$
Yes, but that was not the question was it? 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
There can still be a fish that is a human, can't it? 🤔

Everything else looks correct to me, although I'm used to seeing $\forall$ in front of them.

So we have the following:
(i) $\forall x\in E\rightarrow x\notin (F\cup S)$
(ii) $N\subseteq H$ i.e. $\forall x\in N\rightarrow x\in H$
(iii) $\forall x\in H : x\notin S \rightarrow x\in S^c$
(iv) What do you mean by "There can still be a fish that is a human" ?
(v) $\exists x \in (E\cap M)$
(vi) $M\subseteq N$

Is everything correct except (iv) ? :unsure:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yes, but that was not the question was it? 🤔

Could you give me a hint for that? :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
So we have the following:
(i) $\forall x\in E\rightarrow x\notin (F\cup S)$
(ii) $N\subseteq H$ i.e. $\forall x\in N\rightarrow x\in H$
(iii) $\forall x\in H : x\notin S \rightarrow x\in S^c$
(iv) What do you mean by "There can still be a fish that is a human" ?
(v) $\exists x \in (E\cap M)$
(vi) $M\subseteq N$

I think it should be:
(i) $x\in E\rightarrow x\notin (F\cup S)$
(ii) $N\subseteq H$ i.e. $x\in N\rightarrow x\in H$
(iii) $\forall x\in H : x\notin S \rightarrow x\in S^c$
(iv) --
(v) $\exists x \in (E\cap M)$
(vi) $M\subseteq N$

As for (iv), you had $F\not\subseteq H$ for "fish are not human".
Suppose $F=\{\text{fish}, \text{human}\}$ and $H=\{\text{human}\}$.
Then $F\not\subseteq H$ is satisfied isn't it? But there is a fish that is a human, which contradicts the desired statement. 🤔

Could you give me a hint for that?
We want to deduce that there was a mathematician who was not a swimmer from the given statements.
Perhaps we can begin with (v) that says that there was a case of a drowned mathematician?
Can we apply the other statements to find out that this drowned mathematician was not a swimmer? 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We want to deduce that there was a mathematician who was not a swimmer from the given statements.
Perhaps we can begin with (v) that says that there was a case of a drowned mathematician?
Can we apply the other statements to find out that this drowned mathematician was not a swimmer? 🤔

(v) There was a case of a drowned mathematician.
(i) Those who drown are not a fish or a swimmer.
(vi) Mathematicians are scientists.
(ii) Scientists are human.
In the case of a fish we have from (iv) that fish are not human. Contradiction.
But we cannot conclude that this drowned mathematician was not a swimmer, right? :unsure:
 
I believe (iv) should be $F\cap H=\varnothing$, or $\forall x\in F: x\not\in H$, or $x\in F\to x\not\in H$.

mathmari said:
(v) There was a case of a drowned mathematician.
(i) Those who drown are not a fish or a swimmer.
(vi) Mathematicians are scientists.
(ii) Scientists are human.
In the case of a fish we have from (iv) that fish are not human. Contradiction.
But we cannot conclude that this drowned mathematician was not a swimmer, right?

Let's try to split up "Those who drown are not a fish or a swimmer."
It is the same as:
"Those who drown are NOT (a fish OR a swimmer)."
"(Those who drown are NOT a fish) AND (Those who drawn are NOT a swimmer)."
"Those who drown are NOT a fish" and "Those who drawn are NOT a swimmer."

Since there was a mathematician who drowned, we can conclude that they were not a swimmer, can't we? 🤔
 
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.
Back
Top