1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockNo, it's not... actually. If it was equivalent no one would have bothered to invest predicate logic in the first place, now would they?
A "All p are q" statement is equivalent to "p->q".
Straightforward kindergarten logic.
Mel had already stated so in his second post.
Every time I remember you're a Physicist I die a little bit inside...
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockthe proposition is true because the mutant creature that you describe does not exist.
Tell me if the statement is true or false without metaphysical/ontological worries.
An answer like "The proposition is true because..." or "The proposition is false because...".
Originally posted by MelanerpesMel, my man, as much as like you i have to say that this answer is...
the proposition is true because the mutant creature that you suggest does not exist.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
correct.
Your answer could be a little more complete but I think this suffices.
🙂
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe question is that an "all p are q" statement is equivalent to "p->q" not the relation between predicate and proposition logic.
So if you can describe predicate logic in terms of proposition logic, what is the point of predicate logic?
Simple really.
You don't know how to answer this simple logic puzzle, but that's no reason to be all miffed about it: Person X couldn't do it and he/she has a PhD in a relevant field.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBasically it is what's on the first post.
yes
Person X made a dubious claim.
Person X was tested in a simple logic puzzle and failed to answer it correctly.
Person X tried to weasle out of his dubious claim by making a ridiculous statement.
To shut up Person X I made this thread.
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat was Person X's dubious claim? Did the logic puzzle relate in some way to this dubious claim?
Basically it is what's on the first post.
Person X made a dubious claim.
Person X was tested in a simple logic puzzle and failed to answer it correctly.
Person X tried to weasle out of his dubious claim by making a ridiculous statement.
To shut up Person X I made this thread.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's on the OP, but I'll repeat it: Person X claimed to have a PhD on field of knowledge that if true would make him answer that question correctly in less than a second.
What was Person X's dubious claim? Did the logic puzzle relate in some way to this dubious claim?
Edit: Do you think you can give a more complete justification of the truth value of the proposition... I don't want to be unfair with Fabian...