![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Logic
Just like cola's math posts!
I'm mostly just writing this down for myself. We are supposed to 'symbolize [some] sentences, showing as much of their form as possible', and provide a scheme of abbreviation. The last one is a quote, apparently, from the History of England, by Thomas Babbington and Lord Macaulay (or, it is dimly possible, Lord Macaulay Thomas Babbington):
I've done it, messily, so:
G = "There were gentlemen in the navy of Charles II"
S = "There were seamen in the navy of Charles II"
R = "The seamen were gentlemen"
H = "The gentlemen were seamen"
[I chose 'R' and 'H' so that they would be striving to approach each other across the gulf of the alphabet.]
(G • S) • (~R • ~H)
...but I've been wondering if there's a way to do it with only two symbols. The best I've come up with is,
G = "A man in the navy of Charles II could be a gentleman"
S = "That same man could be a seaman"
(G v S) • ~(G • S)
...but I don't know if that's as good or better at being the sentence, or if it's really that much cleaner, since I had to be kind of tortuous in defining the abbreviation.
I have made some friends in logic class (one in particular¹ that a couple of you have heard of) and it looks as though we're going to accumulate more, which is awesome. I would be taking this to one of them except that I don't know how to contact any of them outside of class.
¹ Chona, if you're reading this someday, this was you!²
² Which is not to say that the Jason of the future should feel snubbed. See how I mention him, too.³
³ Magda, I have only just spoken to you for the first time today. But I still like your name.
I'm mostly just writing this down for myself. We are supposed to 'symbolize [some] sentences, showing as much of their form as possible', and provide a scheme of abbreviation. The last one is a quote, apparently, from the History of England, by Thomas Babbington and Lord Macaulay (or, it is dimly possible, Lord Macaulay Thomas Babbington):
There were gentlemen and there were seamen in the navy of Charles II. But the seamen were not gentlemen, and the gentlemen were not seamen.
I've done it, messily, so:
G = "There were gentlemen in the navy of Charles II"
S = "There were seamen in the navy of Charles II"
R = "The seamen were gentlemen"
H = "The gentlemen were seamen"
[I chose 'R' and 'H' so that they would be striving to approach each other across the gulf of the alphabet.]
(G • S) • (~R • ~H)
...but I've been wondering if there's a way to do it with only two symbols. The best I've come up with is,
G = "A man in the navy of Charles II could be a gentleman"
S = "That same man could be a seaman"
(G v S) • ~(G • S)
...but I don't know if that's as good or better at being the sentence, or if it's really that much cleaner, since I had to be kind of tortuous in defining the abbreviation.
I have made some friends in logic class (one in particular¹ that a couple of you have heard of) and it looks as though we're going to accumulate more, which is awesome. I would be taking this to one of them except that I don't know how to contact any of them outside of class.
¹ Chona, if you're reading this someday, this was you!²
² Which is not to say that the Jason of the future should feel snubbed. See how I mention him, too.³
³ Magda, I have only just spoken to you for the first time today. But I still like your name.
no subject
How about
A = "There were gentlemen in the navy of Charles II."
B = "There were seamen in the navy of Charles II."
C = "There were gentleman seamen in the navy of Charles II."
A • B • ~C
?
no subject
You are, belatedly, absolutely right, although I didn't realise what you were saying until after my Professor explained it also. This experiment dot dot dot dot failed.
Turns out my first way is really the best way to do it, after all. ^^;
-Andy H.
no subject
Tee-hee! Curiously, it is 'S' that brings them together.