Hi everyone,

Your midsemester grades, which include the grades for Exam #2, are now posted on the Grades page. Let me know if you have any questions, and send me an email if you have forgotten the password to the Grades page.

Regards,

Prof. Reitz

Skip to the content

Hi everyone,

Your midsemester grades, which include the grades for Exam #2, are now posted on the Grades page. Let me know if you have any questions, and send me an email if you have forgotten the password to the Grades page.

Regards,

Prof. Reitz

- Discrete Mathematics logical equivalence laws of logic September 10, 2024I'm stuck with a problem and I'm having trouble understanding the problem and I keep getting stuck. Prove that ∼[ (c∨t)∨(p∨∼p)]≡c. Don’t use a Truth Table. Prove a list of logical equivalencies citing a logic law (such as DeMorgan) at each step (see Thm 2.1.1 of our textbook) So far, I have this written out […]FighterJet1
- apparent nonsense in truth table [duplicate] September 10, 2024The truth table of implication of two statements is known as: p q p --> q T T T T F F F T T F F T My questions: Consider p as "it rains" and q as "it is cloudy". It is not necessarily true that if it does not rain then it is […]Hair80
- Graph theory approach to find the best sequence of implications to prove the equivalence of N statements September 10, 2024Suppose we have N statements that are known to be equivalent and suppose we know how difficult it is to prove every implication. which is the easiest way to prove that they are equivalent? This problem can be stated in terms of graph theory in the following way: We have a complete directed graph G […]stebev
- Is a "logical argument" a "rule of inference", and an "inference rule" the same thing? September 10, 2024Difference sources and diciplines use different terminologies, but they all seem to describe the same logical structure like the following: Premise 1 Premise 2 ... --------- Conclusion So are all those terms describe the same thing? Or do they have some subtle differences?Lesley Lai
- Consistency-proof of ZFC September 9, 2024According to Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem, ZFC cannot prove its own consistency. However, I have read that a stronger system S, i.e., a system that can fully represent/simulate/formalize ZFC and even go beyond it, can prove Con(ZFC) (of course, only if such a proof results from what S can do beyond ZFC). But this seems […]Pippen
- The prenex form doesn't seem equivalent to the original sentence September 9, 2024I was reading this stackexchange post and am confused about the following logical equivalence. I have tried to generalize what they've done as follows: ∀x[∀y[f(y)] → g(x)] ; for all x, if for all y, f(y) is true, then g(x) is true ∀x[~∀y[f(y)] V g(x)] ∀x[∃y~[f(y)] V g(x)] ∀x∃y[~[f(y)] V g(x)] ∀x∃y[f(y) → g(x)] ; […]work work
- Is it believed that statements exist whose independence cannot be proven even if we start using large cardinal axioms? September 8, 2024Here are some observations: Gödel's proof of his theorem invokes an unprovable statement. In a stronger system that accepts the original system was consistent (which may be the result of a large cardinal), it is possible to prove the undecidability of this statement. Secondly, AC and CH are provably independent of ZF and ZFC when […]Pineapple Fish
- How could I formally express: System F cannot express universal quantification over things that are not types? [closed] September 8, 2024I'm trying to understand exactly why it is that https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy states that quantification requires dependent types, and why this wouldn't be possible to achieve with System F. From what I've managed to gather, System F can express quantification, but only over types, and not over elements or predicates. I'm looking for a way to formalize […]shintuku
- Can we always prove whether a statement is undecidable by adding consistency strength? September 8, 2024So, if a statement is independent of a list of axioms then the system cannot prove it. For example, CH is independent from ZFC. But if we accept ZFC is consistent then we can prove CH must be independent of it. Of course because of Gödel's incompleteness theorem we can cook up more statements that […]Pineapple Fish
- construction of truth table for $(P \implies Q) \vee R)$ [closed] September 8, 2024construction of truth table for $(P \implies Q) \vee R)$ So here's my attempt :- \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline P & Q & P \implies Q & R & (P \implies Q) \vee R \\ \hline T & F & F & {F\\T} & {F\\T} \\ \hline T & T & T & {T\\F} & {T\\T} \\ […]math and physics forever

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.

## Recent Comments