Reputation
7,031
Top tag
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
7 28 91
Impact
~162k people reached

1d
comment Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
It seems that writing it the way I'm writing, there are solutions. See here.
1d
comment Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
You wrote $(D\lor\neg M)$ for "*It wasn't $D$; It was $M$*". I'm writing it differently: I'm writing $(\neg D\lor M)$ for it. Is there a problem with this?
1d
comment Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
There is one way to write a boolean expression to check that, isn't it? I'm just not sure if it would be: $$\neg d\land m\land \neg m\land \neg d\land d\land \neg g\land m\land M\land j\land \neg g$$ Or $$(\neg d\land m)\lor (\neg m\land \neg d)\lor (d\land \neg g)\lor (m\land M)\lor (j\land \neg g)$$
1d
comment Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
I changed it, but it was what I meant with: Knowing everyone told a lie, who was the criminal?.
1d
revised Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
added 13 characters in body
1d
comment Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
No, each one told only one lie.
1d
revised Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
added 626 characters in body
1d
asked Is it possible to find the criminal with graph-theoretic methods?
Aug
24
asked $\forall a[P(a)\implies Q(a)]\wedge \forall a[Q(a)\implies P(a)]\stackrel{?}{\equiv} \forall a[[P(a)\implies Q(a)]\wedge [Q(a)\implies P(a)]]$
Aug
22
comment The method of exhaustion in tom apostol calculus vol $1$
You can skip this intro and keep reading it nonetheless. As you progress through the book, you may have developed more mathematical maturity. I tell you this because the first time I took this book, I knew very little mathematics and also found the introduction a little hard.
Aug
21
asked $1+2+3=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^3e^{-t} dt$?
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
Good, that's the spirit. When I read about induction, everything seemed to be connected and it made no sense. After some thought, I realized that induction is one thing that can be used to prove ideas in another ideologically feasible frameworks, such as graphs, semirings (in this case), etc.
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
No, I'm not trying to prove it's right. I'm trying to understand what are the laws that forbid me of writing $f(k+1)= f(k)+(k+1)$. And I guess it has something to do with the semiring axioms.
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
I mean, to write $f(k+1)$ as $f(k)+(k+1)$, I need to have the idea of equivalent rewriting, and I guess this idea comes from the semiring axioms.
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
Why doesn't induction works on semirings? After all, we're dealing with $\Bbb{N}$, addition and multiplication. And it follows these axioms.
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
@KittyL Yes. The weird thing is that using the first $5$ numbers of that sequence, it yields preciselly the formula of the sum of the first $n$ positive integers. I'm curious about why does it gives precisely $\cfrac{x(x+1)}{2}$ and not some other random formula. But I'll ask this on another ocasion.
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
@whacka Yes. I've also looked for some easy sequence (sharing some of the first terms) on OEIS. But as I read Farrugia's article I mentioned in the text, I had to use it because seemed fun.
Aug
18
revised On the inner workings of induction?
added 64 characters in body
Aug
18
comment On the inner workings of induction?
Sorry, @whacka. We edited at the same time.
Aug
18
revised On the inner workings of induction?
added 305 characters in body