Hi everyone,

As announced in class on Thursday, WeBWorK #4 has been extended by 1 week – it is now due on 9/27 at midnight.

NOTE: WeBWorK #3 is still due this Tuesday, 9/20, at midnight.

Best,

Prof. Reitz

Skip to the content

Hi everyone,

As announced in class on Thursday, WeBWorK #4 has been extended by 1 week – it is now due on 9/27 at midnight.

NOTE: WeBWorK #3 is still due this Tuesday, 9/20, at midnight.

Best,

Prof. Reitz

- Enderton Set Theory Question on Cardinals and Ordinals April 21, 2024Assume that A is a set and define (as in Hartogs' theorem) α to be the set of ordinals dominated by A. Show that (i) a is a cardinal number, (ii) card AFushi Wang
- Enumerating all finite models up to isomorphism April 21, 2024For bit of context, please read the answers to this previous question of mine. Given a FO language $L$ with finitely many constant and relation symbols. I don't understand why the set of finite $L$-structures that are isomorphic to each other (I am not sure what it means exactly) is countable, and hence can be […]John Davies
- sets and logic, whether a function is injective and/or surjective? [closed] April 20, 2024Let $f:\mathcal P(\Bbb N)\to\mathcal P(\Bbb N)$ be the function defined by $f(a)=\Bbb N\setminus a$ for every set $a⊆\Bbb N$. Is this function injective? Is it surjective? Justify your answer. How do I go about proving it?confusedmathstudent
- Show that $\vdash (\forall x(C_x\implies M_x)\implies (\exists xC_x\implies \exists xM_x))$ April 20, 2024Show that $\vdash (\forall x(C_x\implies M_x)\implies (\exists xC_x\implies \exists xM_x))$ The steps I've taken: (1) By the deduction rule, it suffices to show: $$\forall x(C_x\implies M_x)\vdash (\exists xC_x\implies \exists xM_x)$$ (2) Again, By the deduction rule, it suffices to show: $$\forall x(C_x\implies M_x), \exists xC_x\vdash \exists xM_x$$ (3) Switching quantifiers: $$\forall x(C_x\implies M_x),(\neg \forall x(\neg […]AmazingAnimal3219
- Reconstructing a closure operator from a set of fixed points April 19, 2024Let $L$ be a lattice, not necessarily complete. We define a closure operator as a function $f\colon L\to L$ which is: idempotent, $f(f(x)) = f(x)$, isotone, $x\leq y \Rightarrow f(x) \leq f(y)$, extensive, $x \leq f(x)$ for each $x,y \in L$. Then the set of fixed points of $f$ is the set of closed elements. […]Jakim
- What inference rule corresponds to the Generalization rule of daily math? April 19, 2024It seems the following inference rules are all correct in the sequent calculus(See Ebbinghaus's book): $\dfrac{\Gamma \phi \dfrac{y}{x}}{\Gamma \forall x \phi}$, if y is not free in $\Gamma \forall x \phi$ $\dfrac{\Gamma \phi}{\Gamma \forall x \phi}$, if x is not free in $\Gamma$ $\dfrac{\Gamma \phi \dfrac{c}{x}}{\Gamma \forall x \phi}$, if c does not occr in […]William
- Propositional Logic Theorem Proof Help: (¬(P↔Q)↔(P↔¬Q)) April 19, 2024Can anyone help me prove this theorem via natural deduction for my class? $$(¬(P↔Q)↔(P↔¬Q))$$ I can solve one side of the biconditional quite easily using conditional derivation, but have no idea how to solve the other way. Below is my proof for one direction of the biconditional. I am not allowed to use any other […]milfordcubicle2
- First order logic, why are the quantifier rules of inference reasonable? April 18, 2024This picture is from the book "Mathematical Logic, 2nd edition, Christopher C. Leary, Lars Kristensen" : I have two questions : Why are the quantifier rules of inference reasonable as they write in the start of the text ? Consider these variations : $$(\{\psi\rightarrow \phi\}, \psi \rightarrow (\exists x \phi)\})$$ $$(\{\phi\rightarrow \psi\}, (\forall x \phi) […]user394334
- Logical Definition of Isomorphism April 18, 2024I'm trying to define isomorphism in a logical way. Is the following statement true for Isomorphism's definition? Let $\langle S,⋆\rangle$ and $\langle S',⋆'\rangle$ be Algebraic Structures. These two structures are isomorphic if and only if: $$\left( \exists \phi : S \rightarrow S' \right) \left(\ \forall a,b \in S \right) \left[ \left( \phi (a⋆b) = \phi(a) […]Karaji
- Is the inference rule another notation for $\implies$? April 18, 2024In mathematical logic, when we write a formula of the metalanguage (such as $A \vdash B$) above an horizontal rule and another formula (such as $\vdash A \to B$), is it the same as writing a meta implication sign $\implies$ between the two formulas?user1313248

advice for the future
assignment
assignments
calculus
calendar
cancelled
conjecture
date change
due date
exam #3
exam 1
exam 2
extension
grades
grading criteria
grading policy
graph theory
group paper
group project
homework
in-class
late
lockhart's lament
mathography
metacognition
MIU puzzle
office hours
openlab
OpenLab #4: Bridges and Walking Tours
OpenLab 8
OpenLab8
perfect circle
points
presentation
project
resource
review
rubric
semester project
vi hart
visual math
Wau
webwork
week 8
written work

© 2024 2016 Fall – MAT 2071 Proofs and Logic – Reitz

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

Our goal is to make the OpenLab accessible for all users.

top

Our goal is to make the OpenLab accessible for all users.

## Leave a Reply