MHB Writing a statement into symbolic logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Writing
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on translating the statement "The square of every odd integer is one more than an integral multiple of 4" into symbolic logic. Participants suggest different symbolic representations, with one proposing the formula $$\forall n \in \mathbb Z: n\text{ odd} \to n^2 \bmod 4 = 1$$ and another suggesting $$\forall m\exists n\,(2m+1)(2m+1)=4n+1$$. The conversation emphasizes the importance of defining the logical vocabulary and interpretation for clarity. Overall, the goal is to accurately represent the mathematical statement in symbolic form. The discussion highlights the nuances of translating mathematical expressions into logic.
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Dear Everyone,

I need to translate this following statement into a symbolic logical form of the statement:

The square of every odd integer is one more than an integral multiple of 4.

Thanks,

Cbarker1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cbarker1 said:
Dear Everyone,

I need to translate this following statement into a symbolic logical form of the statement:

The square of every odd integer is one more than an integral multiple of 4.

Thanks,

Cbarker1

Something like:
$$\forall n \in \mathbb Z: n\text{ odd} \to n^2 \bmod 4 = 1$$
? (Wondering)
 
Cbarker1 said:
The square of every odd integer is one more than an integral multiple of 4.
You can denote the whole statement by a single letter, say, $P$. This is to show that in order to make the problem meaningful, the problem author must specify the signature, or vocabulary: constants, functional symbols and predicate symbols that can be used in the formula. Ideally the author should also specify the interpretation of that signature because this statement is written differently over natural numbers and over reals.

But, guessing the author's intent, the answer is probably
\[
\forall m\exists n\,(2m+1)(2m+1)=4n+1.
\]
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K