MHB Valid Arguments: Sets Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter ertagon2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
ertagon2
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
View attachment 7799
is this right ?6(1).
p$\implies$q,
$\lnot$q$\therefore\lnot$p,
Modus tollens

6(2).
p$\implies$q,
q$\implies$r,
q$\therefore$r,
Transitivity

6(3).
p$\implies$q,
q$\therefore$p.
Converse fallacy

7. I have no idea what I'm doing please explain.
 

Attachments

  • mathsq3.png
    mathsq3.png
    20.9 KB · Views: 128
Physics news on Phys.org
ertagon2 said:
is this right ?6(1).
p$\implies$q,
$\lnot$q$\therefore\lnot$p,
Modus tollens

6(2).
p$\implies$q,
q$\implies$r,
q$\therefore$r,
Transitivity

I think you mean $\therefore \; p\implies r$, right?

ertagon2 said:
6(3).
p$\implies$q,
q$\therefore$p.
Converse fallacy

This is all correct.

ertagon2 said:
7. I have no idea what I'm doing please explain.

The subset $\subset$ relation works like this: $A\subset B$ if and only if every element of $A$ is an element of $B$. So, for 7.A., look at every element of the set $\{1,2\}$, and see if they are in $A$ (they are). 7.B. is trickier. The relation "is an element of", $\in$, works differently from the $\subset$ relation. Sets can be elements of other sets, or they can be subsets of other sets. Neither implies the other. In this case, because $A=\{1,2,\{1,2\}\}$, and you have that nested $\{1,2\}$ sitting inside, then it follows that $\{1,2\}$ is an element of $A$. For something to be an element of another set, it's got to show up at the highest level, separated from other elements by commas. So, for example, if you define the set $C=\{1,2,\{3,4\}\}$, then the elements of $C$ are $1$, $2$, and $\{3,4\}$. Neither $3$ nor $4$ are elements of $C$. Does this help? Can you see why 7.C. is true and 7.D. is false?
 
Ackbach said:
I think you mean $\therefore \; p\implies r$, right?
This is all correct.
The subset $\subset$ relation works like this: $A\subset B$ if and only if every element of $A$ is an element of $B$. So, for 7.A., look at every element of the set $\{1,2\}$, and see if they are in $A$ (they are). 7.B. is trickier. The relation "is an element of", $\in$, works differently from the $\subset$ relation. Sets can be elements of other sets, or they can be subsets of other sets. Neither implies the other. In this case, because $A=\{1,2,\{1,2\}\}$, and you have that nested $\{1,2\}$ sitting inside, then it follows that $\{1,2\}$ is an element of $A$. For something to be an element of another set, it's got to show up at the highest level, separated from other elements by commas. So, for example, if you define the set $C=\{1,2,\{3,4\}\}$, then the elements of $C$ are $1$, $2$, and $\{3,4\}$. Neither $3$ nor $4$ are elements of $C$. Does this help? Can you see why 7.C. is true and 7.D. is false?

So I did answer everything correctly?
Can you please explain 6.(3)
Why is it $\therefore$p$\implies$r rather than p$\therefore$r <--this is what I meant
 
ertagon2 said:
So I did answer everything correctly?

Yes, I think so.

ertagon2 said:
Can you please explain 6.(3)
Why is it $\therefore$p$\implies$r rather than p$\therefore$r <--this is what I meant

The problem with writing $p\therefore r$ is that it is confusing. Someone looking at that might think you've concluded that $p$ is actually true, whereas it's only ever an assumption in the entire argument. Moreover, the word "therefore" or symbol $\therefore$ is meant to indicate that what follows is the conclusion. It's not usually meant to be used as part of the conclusion, or in the middle of it. Does that help?
 
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