ii. Same. (But either goes with or, and neither goes with nor, if you want to nit pick).
i. (I think I'm wrong)... I get forall-x forall-y (S(x) & P(y) & F(x,y))
<< !!!! Grab your copy of LPL, and look up "translation ... at least ..."
You need to specify "Not at most two" in such a case... or do I have that backward. Point is it's not as innocent as it pretends to be.
ii. It's probably safer to avoid x's in the English, so what I had (after deleting my x version) was "If something feeds something, then the former is a student, and the latter is a parrot."
"Something" is a very thin disguise for an x.
i. Basically the same. I just used the other De Morgan form, where the negation is not pushed inside the bracket. I used brackets round the inside terms, too, which is too conservative. (Could well be marked wrong).
ii. Yes. (What a tangle, eh?)
However, in this particular question the kind of "parrot" they're talking about is the locomotive (which is fed coal by apprentice stokers - also referred to as "students".)
No hang on that was what the symbol "parrot" meant in 2007. Last year it had an almost natural meaning. It was a short form for "parrot fish", which are fed only by the marine biology students assigned to the aquarium..
For me the most natural way to think about it is actually with x's. However, I think that's a way to lose a mark or two, so the "least onerous alternative" is all we need find.
"Something" is about as "x" as I can get in English.
So the procedure would be to say "if x is a student and y is a parrot, then x feeds y", and then translate that to something more English-sounding?
" if something ... and something ... then something feeds something"... Not surprising that it sounds a little artificial, but at least the x has vanished. Of course one should always be on the lookout for something (anotherX!) less forced than "something" if possible.