0
$\begingroup$

Is this a proper example of FORMAL logic notation? (Ǝ c ∈ Cookies such that Ǝ d ∈ duck, d wants c)

I have a question that requires an answer in 'formal' logic notation. I'm assuming that they're making a distinction between 'normal' logic notation as in: p ^ q -> r

Question 2: I have a question that reads:

Use truth table to determine whether the following arguments are valid or not. If (~p ∨ q ∨ r) holds and (q->r) holds, then infer that (p->r) holds. Here (~p ∨ q ∨ r) and (q ∨ r) are premises; (p->r) is the conclusion.

I'm not sure if the question is asking if (~p ∨ q ∨ r) ^ (q ∨ r) = (q->r) If that's the case then the arguments are false. At lease in the case of p=F, q=T, r=F. Am I on the right path?

EDIT: 'COMMENT'

So the question is basically: Given: (~p ∨ q ∨ r) ^ (q ∨ r) = (q->r) is this true?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

For 1., the "formal" notation, using predicate logic, will be :

$(Ǝ c ∈ Cookies)(Ǝ d ∈ Ducks)Wants(d,c)$.

For 2., you have to show that :

$(\lnot p ∨ q ∨ r) \land (q ∨ r) \vDash (q \to r)$,

i.e. the conjunction of the premises logically implies the conclusion. It does not means necessarily that premises and conlcusion are logically equivalent : in this case, as you noticed, they are not.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.