MHB Writing a statement into symbolic logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Writing
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
\[
\forall m\exists n\,(2m+1)(2m+1)=4n+1.
\]
 
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