Peter Smith
Reputation
31,801
97/100 score
 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?