Person X

Originally posted by adam warlock
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...

No, it's not... actually. If it was equivalent no one would have bothered to invest predicate logic in the first place, now would they?

Originally posted by generalissimo
you people just don't have any sense of humor, I made a sarcastic comment which was misinterpreted by a guy who is arguably mentally unstable (given his history of threats and abusive behavior). thats all.

Are you this 'Person X'?

Originally posted by adam warlock
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...".

the proposition is true because the mutant creature that you describe does not exist.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, it's not... actually.

Ridiculous!

Originally posted by adam warlock
Ridiculous!

So if you can describe predicate logic in terms of proposition logic, what is the point of predicate logic?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
the proposition is true because the mutant creature that you suggest does not exist.

Mel, my man, as much as like you i have to say that this answer is...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
correct.

Your answer could be a little more complete but I think this suffices.

🙂

okay --- so what's the whole point of all of this.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So if you can describe predicate logic in terms of proposition logic, what is the point of predicate logic?

The question is that an "all p are q" statement is equivalent to "p->q" not the relation between predicate and proposition 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 Melanerpes
okay --- so what's the whole point of all of this.

Are you asking me?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Are you asking me?

yes

Originally posted by Melanerpes
yes

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.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Are you asking me?

To remind us all of the importance of the existential and universal quantifiers.

Originally posted by adam warlock
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.

What was Person X's dubious claim? Did the logic puzzle relate in some way to this dubious claim?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
What was Person X's dubious claim? Did the logic puzzle relate in some way to this dubious claim?

It'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.

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...

Originally posted by mrj0hn50n
To remind us all of the importance of the existential and universal quantifiers.

Just think that you exchange the existential and the universal quantifier in the epsilon-delta condition for continuity... 😲😲😲😲😲

Hell would break loose.