MHB Validating Statement Using Truth Tables: Failed Basket-Weaving 101

  • Thread starter Thread starter trevor
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on validating a logical statement using truth tables related to studying and failing a course. The argument presented is that if studying prevents failure, and not playing cards leads to studying, then failing indicates excessive card playing. Participants suggest constructing a truth table to analyze the implications of the statements involved. Recommendations include breaking down the statements into simpler propositions and using mnemonic names for clarity. The conversation emphasizes the importance of logical reasoning in validating the argument.
trevor
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
If I study, then I will not fail basket-weaving 101. If I do not play cards to often, then
I will study. I failed basket-weaving 101. Therefore, I played cards too often. Is this
statement valid (use truth tables to verify).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
trevor said:
If I study, then I will not fail basket-weaving 101. If I do not play cards to often, then
I will study. I failed basket-weaving 101. Therefore, I played cards too often. Is this
statement valid (use truth tables to verify).

Have you constructed a truth table? Care to share? :). If not, I recommend breaking down all the words into a string of implications. For example, let A be the statement "I study", B be the statement "I failed basket-weaving" etc and use these to help with the truth table.
 
Joppy said:
Have you constructed a truth table? Care to share? :). If not, I recommend breaking down all the words into a string of implications. For example, let A be the statement "I study", B be the statement "I failed basket-weaving" etc and use these to help with the truth table.

Thank you. I will send what I find
 
I would also recommend using mnemonic names for propositions, such as $S$ for "I studied" and $F$ for "I failed basket-weaving".
 

Thread 'A variant of the Monty Hall problem'

There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Help on this truth table- Is this statement valid
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Truth Tables for Validity: Using Equations to Determine Satisfaction
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Prove that the statement is always true using the rules of boolean algebra
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
MHB Solving Q.7 with Truth Tables: What Is the Right Conclusion?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB How Do Truth Tables and Venn Diagrams Verify Logical Equivalence?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
I On the meaning of logical implication within specific context/models
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Prove validity of a cononclusion
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Validity Using Euler Circles and Truth Tables
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
Help, find a statement using a truth table
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
B Which probability calculation is "more correct" in Baccarat games?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K