Represent the following statement forms using only statement variables, the connective -->, and the symbol for contradiction: c. Justify your answers with truth tables.
Please help this makes no fucking sense.
>>7798289
>truth tables
Your school is shit.
>statement variables
>obfuscation terminology
Your school is really shitty.
>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products
Your school is a joke.
>>7798307
>complaining about the use of truth tables in what is clearly the beginning of an introductory class
You are a joke
>>7798307
>I have never taken a course in symbolic logic
>>7798314
You should never see truth tables beyond day 1
>>7798318
You are aware of the date, right?
>>7798289
Bump
>>7798307
>>using ^ for anything other than exterior/wedge products
You are:
1) a retard.
2) an undergrad who doesn't know dick about categorical logic.
Everything else I agree with. Truth tables are okay at an intro level but they're deeply biased towards classical logic. "Statement variables" should be called propositions or 0-ary predicates.
>>7798318
Truth tables are a form of proof that is useful in highlighting the relationship between statements in a logic and their models. A clever student can convert truth tables into Eulerian diagrams and trivialize the majority of intro logic.
>>7798318
Except you should.
>>7798619
Me again, I got so caught up in criticizing that retard that I forgot about OP's question.
>>7798289
OP, what your professor is trying to get at is that implication and contradiction form a truth functionally complete set of connectives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_completeness#Introduction
>>7798629
I don't understand
>>7798289
1. x→y = ¬x∨y
2. ¬x∧¬y = ¬(x∨y)
=>
x∧y = ¬(¬x∨¬y)
= ¬(x→¬y)
x y x∧y ¬y (x→¬y) ¬(x→¬y)
0 0 | 0 1 1 0
0 1 | 0 0 1 0
1 0 | 0 1 1 0
1 1 | 1 0 0 1
