Reputation
31,801
Next tag badge:
97/100 score
31/20 answers
Badges
3 27 93
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~476k people reached

Mar
3
awarded  Nice Answer
Feb
9
revised prove using natural deduction $((P \land Q) \rightarrow R) \vdash (P \rightarrow R) \lor (Q\rightarrow R)$
added 70 characters in body
Feb
8
revised prove using natural deduction $((P \land Q) \rightarrow R) \vdash (P \rightarrow R) \lor (Q\rightarrow R)$
added 108 characters in body
Feb
8
comment prove using natural deduction $(R \rightarrow (P \rightarrow Q))\vdash (Q\rightarrow P) \lor (P \rightarrow Q)$
This isn't strictly a duplicate. But the OP should perhaps have waited for an answer to their similar question to see if the answer to that would give a clue how to answer this (which it does!). Otherwise this smacks of just coming to get other people to do all one's homework thinking!
Feb
8
answered prove using natural deduction $((P \land Q) \rightarrow R) \vdash (P \rightarrow R) \lor (Q\rightarrow R)$
Feb
5
revised choose from implication and logical and in write assertions in first-order logic
added 296 characters in body
Feb
2
revised Survey of varieties of non-standard analysis?
edited tags
Feb
2
asked Survey of varieties of non-standard analysis?
Jan
31
awarded  Enlightened
Jan
31
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
24
comment If $T$ is a set, $P(x)$ denotes x is a hard worker and $D(x)$ denotes that $x$ is a worker, how to translate the following to English sentence?
And it doesn't have to be another worker --- it could be the same worker who is a hard worker ...
Jan
22
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
19
revised Recommendation on a rigorous and deep introductory logic textbook
deleted 37 characters in body
Nov
14
revised Categories and set-theoretic quantifiers
added 31 characters in body
Nov
14
answered Categories and set-theoretic quantifiers
Nov
13
accepted You've got your head round Basic Category Theory: why look at monads next?
Nov
11
awarded  Nice Question
Nov
11
reviewed Close The average of 11 results in 50
Nov
11
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
11
comment You've got your head round Basic Category Theory: why look at monads next?
@KevinCarlson "Monads are the simplest way to do universal algebra". I didn't want to clutter the original question with half understood thoughts, but I guess I'm not seeing the wood for the trees on the link to universal algebra ... any pointer to a suitably helpful explication of this?