do you know anything about - Forum

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:
propositional arguments??
like these type of things

If Eve is at home, then Adam is at home.
Adam is at home
Ergo: Eve is at home

im drowning in an assignment and i rly need help pls

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:
pls

Private
World famous

Babel wrote:
Mhhh, what is the assignment about? I don't know a ton about it, but it's something I've seen before.

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:

DeIure wrote:
Mhhh, what is the assignment about? I don't know a ton about it, but it's something I've seen before.

i have this whole long argument that i have to write down with the symbols and then say if its valid og invalid and im just so lost if im doing it right or not

Midaas
World famous

Midaas wrote:
i might also be able to help, i've done that years ago so i may know something

Bimbo
Popstar

Bimbo wrote:

Aquilera wrote:

DeIure wrote:
Mhhh, what is the assignment about? I don't know a ton about it, but it's something I've seen before.

i have this whole long argument that i have to write down with the symbols and then say if its valid og invalid and im just so lost if im doing it right or not

What are the symbols and the argument?

Bimbo
Popstar

Bimbo wrote:

Aquilera wrote:

DeIure wrote:
Mhhh, what is the assignment about? I don't know a ton about it, but it's something I've seen before.

i have this whole long argument that i have to write down with the symbols and then say if its valid og invalid and im just so lost if im doing it right or not

What are the symbols and the argument?

Or do you have to make them up yourself?

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:
sorry had to take a break from it for a bit

this is the argument

It was either Søren or Viggo who committed the robbery. If it was Søren, then he was not in town on Tuesday evening. Unless his friend is lying, Søren was in town on Tuesday evening. Therefore: Either Søren's friend is lying or it was Viggo who committed the robbery.

the symbols are these ones

Private
National star

Sylvan wrote:
ahh had to do this for a seminar once.
I got an B so I can't help.

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:
there's also this one

Midaas
World famous

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:
@Midaas @Bimbo sorry had to take a break from it for a bit

this is the argument

It was either Søren or Viggo who committed the robbery. If it was Søren, then he was not in town on Tuesday evening. Unless his friend is lying, Søren was in town on Tuesday evening. Therefore: Either Søren's friend is lying or it was Viggo who committed the robbery.

the symbols are these ones

if i remember correctly, the first thing to do to solve this is to put
A="Søren committed the robbery" and B="Viggo committed the robbery" so it's easier to refer to these later
then you start thinking which arguments can be true and which can't be true
for example, "A -> NOT B" meaning "if Søren committed the robbery then Viggo didn't commit the robbery" is obviously true since it's just one of them who did it, not both
also argument "A therefore B" can't be true, for the same reason A -> NOT B can be true

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:
@Midaas @Bimbo sorry had to take a break from it for a bit

this is the argument

It was either Søren or Viggo who committed the robbery. If it was Søren, then he was not in town on Tuesday evening. Unless his friend is lying, Søren was in town on Tuesday evening. Therefore: Either Søren's friend is lying or it was Viggo who committed the robbery.

the symbols are these ones

if i remember correctly, the first thing to do to solve this is to put
A="Søren committed the robbery" and B="Viggo committed the robbery" so it's easier to refer to these later
then you start thinking which arguments can be true and which can't be true
for example, "A -> NOT B" meaning "if Søren committed the robbery then Viggo didn't commit the robbery" is obviously true since it's just one of them who did it, not both
also argument "A therefore B" can't be true, for the same reason A -> NOT B can be true

yeahyeah i got that... i just have different ones for it where im not sure which one is the right one to use

p = søren did it
q = viggo did it
r = his friend is lying
s = søren was in town

¬ this means its negative

i made this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=(r∨q)∧¬(r∧q)

and this one
p∨q p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

and this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

Private
Popstar

autism wrote:
sorry too lazy to do logics now but i hope you'll get it done

Midaas
World famous

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:
@Midaas @Bimbo sorry had to take a break from it for a bit

this is the argument

It was either Søren or Viggo who committed the robbery. If it was Søren, then he was not in town on Tuesday evening. Unless his friend is lying, Søren was in town on Tuesday evening. Therefore: Either Søren's friend is lying or it was Viggo who committed the robbery.

the symbols are these ones

if i remember correctly, the first thing to do to solve this is to put
A="Søren committed the robbery" and B="Viggo committed the robbery" so it's easier to refer to these later
then you start thinking which arguments can be true and which can't be true
for example, "A -> NOT B" meaning "if Søren committed the robbery then Viggo didn't commit the robbery" is obviously true since it's just one of them who did it, not both
also argument "A therefore B" can't be true, for the same reason A -> NOT B can be true

yeahyeah i got that... i just have different ones for it where im not sure which one is the right one to use

p = søren did it
q = viggo did it
r = his friend is lying
s = søren was in town

¬ this means its negative

i made this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=(r∨q)∧¬(r∧q)

and this one
p∨q p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

and this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

i'm not sure either which one u should use, i'm not sure if it even matters

therefore u could choose the ones u want

Aquilera
Youtube star

Aquilera wrote:

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:

Midaas wrote:

if i remember correctly, the first thing to do to solve this is to put
A="Søren committed the robbery" and B="Viggo committed the robbery" so it's easier to refer to these later
then you start thinking which arguments can be true and which can't be true
for example, "A -> NOT B" meaning "if Søren committed the robbery then Viggo didn't commit the robbery" is obviously true since it's just one of them who did it, not both
also argument "A therefore B" can't be true, for the same reason A -> NOT B can be true

yeahyeah i got that... i just have different ones for it where im not sure which one is the right one to use

p = søren did it
q = viggo did it
r = his friend is lying
s = søren was in town

¬ this means its negative

i made this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=(r∨q)∧¬(r∧q)

and this one
p∨q p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

and this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

i'm not sure either which one u should use, i'm not sure if it even matters

therefore u could choose the ones u want

it kinda does matter cause some are valid and some are invalid and i dont know what's the right one to use

Midaas
World famous

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:

Midaas wrote:

Aquilera wrote:
yeahyeah i got that... i just have different ones for it where im not sure which one is the right one to use

p = søren did it
q = viggo did it
r = his friend is lying
s = søren was in town

¬ this means its negative

i made this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=(r∨q)∧¬(r∧q)

and this one
p∨q p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

and this one
(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q), p→¬s, ¬r→s|=r∨q

i'm not sure either which one u should use, i'm not sure if it even matters

therefore u could choose the ones u want

it kinda does matter cause some are valid and some are invalid and i dont know what's the right one to use

if you get the same answer (whether Søren or Viggo did it) if you choose p and q or r and s it doesn't matter and i guess u should get the same one no matter which ones u end up choosing