Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Why is ((⊥)) not a formula? (Why isn't it T)

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6

    Why is ((⊥)) not a formula? (Why isn't it T)

    I stumbled across this in my homework problems, but why is ((⊥)) not a valid formula? My perception would be that it is T, but I must admit I am terrible at logic-- illogical even .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana View Post
    I stumbled across this in my homework problems, but why is ((⊥)) not a valid formula? My perception would be that it is T, but I must admit I am terrible at logic-- illogical even .
    ⊥must be a typo.

    is the symbol for negation.
    \vdash is the symbol for "therefore the conclusion is".

    A letter representing a premise must follow ; example Q or S or X. Q= not a queen or S= not silly, or X = not X-Ray.

    ⊥ is not a logic operator, neither ⊥ is T. In math ⊥ means perpendicular.

    Don't feel bad. You will be an expert in no time.
    Last edited by novice; January 19th 2010 at 11:44 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    774
    In mathematical logic, \bot often denotes falsehood (see the table of logic symbols in Wikipedia).

    I stumbled across this in my homework problems, but why is ((⊥)) not a valid formula? My perception would be that it is T, but I must admit I am terrible at logic-- illogical even .
    When you say "valid formula", do you mean "syntactically well-formed formula" or "formula that is true in every interpretation"?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    In mathematical logic, \bot often denotes falsehood (see the table of logic symbols in Wikipedia).

    When you say "valid formula", do you mean "syntactically well-formed formula" or "formula that is true in every interpretation"?
    Nice table.
    My \bot hurt.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6
    I meant well formed (syntactically correct) formula, not one that is always true
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    May 2009
    From
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    46
    Don't think most people use that symbol anyway. It's more common to use 1 or true for the tautology and 0 or false for the contradiction.
    I don't know about the logic that you are learning, but the negation of 0 is 1 in my book. so it's T, yeh >.>

    Even with other definitions:
    not p is the same as p -> 0
    So not 0 is 0 -> 0, which is always true, so 1.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by TiRune View Post
    I don't know about the logic that you are learning, but the negation of 0 is 1 in my book. so it's T, yeh >.>
    @TiRune: Your perception is the same as mine! However this is not the correct answer according to the book and the prof. Apparently negating the falsum symbol is not a syntactically correct formula, and I'm stumped as to why. BTW: the class is Discrete Mathematics For Computer Science
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    774
    Apparently negating the falsum symbol is not a syntactically correct formula
    Aha, so we are talking about syntax here, not truth. Everything depends on the definitions you've been given, but I can make several remarks.

    If \bot was defined as a contraction, for example, for A\land\neg A or 0 = 1, then \bot is not literally a formula; it's a notation that we, humans, use, but which ultimately has to be expanded into the original syntax.

    The same can be said about \neg. One often defined \neg A as A\to\bot; thus \neg\bot is \bot\to\bot. However, these two options seem unlikely to me.

    In the thread title you wrote ((⊥)) with two pairs of parentheses. Maybe your book is very strict on these things and, for example, (A\land B) is considered a formula when A and B are formulas, but ((A)) is not a formula even if (A) is.

    One important remark: you wrote that you thought \neg\bot is \top. These two formulas may be semantically equivalent (true in the same interpretations), but this is not related to whether they are well-formed syntactically. We do not even mention interpretations, truth, and similar things when we talk about formula syntax.

    There may be other weird things about this particular presentation of formula syntax, but this is not an important point. To me, ((\neg\bot)) is a formula, and if this is not so in your course, the reason is most likely in some unusual or extremely pedantic definition.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 15th 2011, 01:30 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 5th 2010, 12:11 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 26th 2010, 07:16 PM
  4. Velocity formula from a position formula
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 5th 2009, 02:50 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 3rd 2009, 11:14 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum