Logic

[garran]

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):

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.

Comments

[masamage.livejournal.com]

[I chose 'R' and 'H' so that they would be striving to approach each other across the gulf of the alphabet.]

Tee-hee! Curiously, it is 'S' that brings them together.