Results 1 to 9 of 9

Math Help - logic and sets help!!

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    logic and sets help!!

    can some plz help me figure this out:

    Consider the following collection of statement.:-
    If I wash thent.

    iii. How many rows would be required by a truth table to show that the
    statements are inconsistent?
    Last edited by srk619; November 19th 2008 at 10:32 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,740
    Thanks
    645
    Hello, srk619!

    Consider the following collection of statements:

    (1) If I wash the dishes, I break something.
    (2) If I break something, I get into trouble.
    (3) If I do not wash the dishes, I am accused of being lazy.
    (4) If I am accused of being lazy, I get into trouble.
    (5) If I get into trouble, I will sulk.
    (6) I will not sulk.

    i. Choose symbols to represent the sentences in the above argument,
    and hence express the statements in terms of propositional calculus.
    . . \begin{array}{ccc}w &  = & \text{I wash the dishes} \\ b &=& \text{I break something} \\ t &=& \text{I get into trouble} \\ l &=& \text{I'm accused of being lazy} \\ s &=& \text{I will sulk} \end{array}


    And we have: . \begin{array}{cc}(1) & w \to b \\ (2) & b \to t \\ (3) & \sim w \to l \\ (4) & l \to t \\ (5) & t \to s \\ (6) & \sim s \end{array}




    ii. Construct a formal proof showing that the statements are inconsistent.
    Working on it . . .



    iii. How many rows would be required by a truth table
    to show that the statements are inconsistent?

    There are five statements: .  w, b, t, l, s

    The truth table will have: . 2^5 = 32 rows.

    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29

    formal proof

    i dont know how to do the formal proof can you help me
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by srk619 View Post
    i dont know how to do the formal proof can you help me
    using Soroban's numbering, let statements 1 through 5 be premises, and statement 6 the conclusion. show that such an argument is invalid.

    (note that in either case, whether you wash the dishes or not, you will get into trouble. statement 5 says if you get into trouble you will sulk, but statement 6 says you won't. obviously this is inconsistent. now find the proof. statement 5 and 6 cannot both be true if statements 1 through 4 are true.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,740
    Thanks
    645
    Hello, srk619!

    . . \begin{array}{ccc}w &  = & \text{I wash the dishes} \\ b &=& \text{I break something} \\ t &=& \text{I get into trouble} \\ l &=& \text{I'm accused of being lazy} \\ s &=& \text{I will sulk} \end{array}


    And we have: . \begin{array}{cc}(1) & w \to b \\ (2) & b \to t \\ (3) & \sim w \to l \\ (4) & l \to t \\ (5) & t \to s \\ (6) & \sim s \end{array}


    ii. Construct a formal proof showing that the statements are inconsistent.
    There must be hundreds of ways to approach this proof . . . Here's mine.


    Let CP(\;) = "contrapositive of"
    . . For example: . CP(3) means "contrapositive of statement (3)".


    . . \begin{array}{cccc}& \text{Statement} & & \text{Reason} \\ \hline \\[-4mm]<br />
(a) & \sim s \to \sim t & & CP(5) \\<br />
(b) &\sim t \to \sim l & & CP(4)  \\<br />
(c) & \sim l \to w & & CP(3) \\<br />
(d) & w \to b & & (1) \\<br />
(e) & b \to t & & (2) \\<br />
-- & ---- \\<br />
(f) & \sim s \to t & & \text{Syllogism} \\\end{array}


    But this contradicts statement (a)\!:\;\;\sim s \to \sim t

    Therefore, the statements are inconsistent.

    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    I've got the exact same question to answer

    But i still don't really understand how you got to that conclusion.

    I tried to write the proof myself but ended up with:


    W = I Wash The Dishes, B = I Break Something, T = I Get In Trouble, L = I am Accused Of Being Lazy,
    S = I Will Sulk

    H1 = W => B [If I wash the dishes, I break something]
    H2 = B => T [If I break something, I get in trouble]
    H3 = W => L [If I do not wash the dishes I am accused of being lazy]
    H4 = L => T [If I am accused of being lazy I get in trouble]
    H5 = T => S [If I get in trouble I will sulk]
    H6 = S [I will not sulk]


    Assertion | Justification
    1. S | H6
    2. T => S | H5
    3. T | 1, 2 Modus Tollens
    4. L => T | H4
    5. L | 3, 4 Modus Tollens
    6. B => T | H2
    7. B | 3, 6 Modus Tollens
    8. W => L | H3
    9. W | 5, 8 Modus Tollens
    10. W => B | H1



    But that doesn't seem to prove anything, plus i think part of it is wrong

    Could anyone help by giving a step by step walkthrough of what you are supposed to do?

    Thank you.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Soroban View Post
    Hello, srk619!

    . . \begin{array}{ccc}w &  = & \text{I wash the dishes} \\ b &=& \text{I break something} \\ t &=& \text{I get into trouble} \\ l &=& \text{I'm accused of being lazy} \\ s &=& \text{I will sulk} \end{array}


    And we have: . \begin{array}{cc}(1) & w \to b \\ (2) & b \to t \\ (3) & \sim w \to l \\ (4) & l \to t \\ (5) & t \to s \\ (6) & \sim s \end{array}


    There must be hundreds of ways to approach this proof . . . Here's mine.


    Let " alt="CP(\" /> = "contrapositive of"
    . . For example: . CP(3) means "contrapositive of statement (3)".


    . . \begin{array}{cccc}& \text{Statement} & & \text{Reason} \\ \hline \\[-4mm]<br />
(a) & \sim s \to \sim t & & CP(5) \\<br />
(b) &\sim t \to \sim l & & CP(4)  \\<br />
(c) & \sim l \to w & & CP(3) \\<br />
(d) & w \to b & & (1) \\<br />
(e) & b \to t & & (2) \\<br />
-- & ---- \\<br />
(f) & \sim s \to t & & \text{Syllogism} \\\end{array}


    But this contradicts statement (a)\!:\;\;\sim s \to \sim t

    Therefore, the statements are inconsistent.

    Forgive me, as Im new to this area of maths.

    Im sorry but Im trying to understand your proof, or see alternatives, but Im struggling to see how you've made this case...mainly the area of syllogism? Now if its hypothetical syllogism, shouldn't (f) be w --> t

    I struggle to see how ~s --> t comes from statment 1 and 2.

    Maybe you can point me in the direction of another approach, if syllogism is a complicated kettle of fish
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    Are there statements not omitted between (e) and (f) that follow the rules of inference, is this the reason why? I cant see why statement 1 and 2, are present in the tableau if they are not worked on?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    never mind...I eventually got there.

    Contra positive is new to me though. Do you have any direct online reading material, or recommended math web links?

    Contra positive by the way, that isn't de Morgans Law is it?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. help with sets and logic
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 13th 2011, 02:56 PM
  2. Sets and logic
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 22nd 2010, 02:16 AM
  3. logic sets help
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 1st 2009, 06:48 AM
  4. logic sets
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 17th 2008, 10:04 AM
  5. Sets and Logic
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 23rd 2008, 05:15 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum