Registered: 13 years ago
I've already ordered the prescribed book but unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding with the bookseller , i havn't received it yet. I' already missed the first assignment and I absolutely need to attempt the second one to gain exam sitting.
Since question 1 of assignment02 is from the prescribed book, can you please send me the question.
The next two exercises present valid arguments. Turn in informal proofs of the arguments' validity. Your proofs should be phrased in complete, well-formed English sentences, making use of first-order sentences as convenient, much in the style we have used above. Whenever you use proof by cases, say so. You don't have to be explicit about the use of simple proof steps like conjunction elimination. By the way,, there is typically more than one way to prove a given result.
(Exercises 5.7 and 5.8 are given, but for the assignment, we just have to do 5.7.)
Ã¢â€â€šHome(max) V Home(claire)
Ã¢â€â€šÃ‚Â¬Home(max) V Happy(carl)
Ã¢â€â€šÃ‚Â¬Home(claire) V Happy(carl)
Registered: 14 years ago
That's not the answer, that's the question. The authors of the textbook use a slightly different notation to that used by Gutenplan from COS161.
let P = Max is home
let Q = Claire is home
let R = Carl is happy
Then by Gutenplan's notation, the question becomes
P v Q, Ã‚Â¬P v R, Ã‚Â¬Q v R |- R
The question requires an informal proof which is just basically using ordinary english to create the proof. The textbook give the following as an example of an informal proof:
Since Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, it follows that Socrates is mortal. But all mortals will eventually die, since that is what it means to be mortal. So Socrates will eventually die. But we are given that everyone who will eventually die sometimes worries about it. Hence Socreates sometimes worries about dying.
I just started the ass and have to get it in by tonight. Prob is I don't know why I am having such trouble with this ques.
I see the answer to it analytically, but when it comes to actually using the proofs of elim and intro - i'm having trouble.
Any clues would be GREATLY appreciated