tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post2774630645265509549..comments2023-11-02T17:30:26.989+05:30Comments on My Technical Scratch Pad.: how to prove it - ch1, sec1.1 exhimanshuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02909790425038294533noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post-55195420104381294082017-02-05T09:34:01.482+05:302017-02-05T09:34:01.482+05:30I agreed with you until I did a truth table and no...I agreed with you until I did a truth table and now agree with Himansh that conclusion is false.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17005447341793543110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post-72616001948490795112014-07-08T03:01:26.288+05:302014-07-08T03:01:26.288+05:30I am having trouble with question 7(d) of section ...I am having trouble with question 7(d) of section 1.1<br />What I don't understand is why you said that when S is true, E is true. Does an increase in sales NECESSARILY imply an increase in expenses? Or do you mean that since S is true, E CAN be true because there is no restriction that says "not"(E and B)Roger Rojashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283412043027756893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post-69515019201979054782012-10-07T19:43:38.806+05:302012-10-07T19:43:38.806+05:30Yeah for 3(a) I got (¬A ∨ ¬B) which is same as che...Yeah for 3(a) I got (¬A ∨ ¬B) which is same as cheliesb's answer. But as you said, it could be argued both ways I guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06225098460886731368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post-63417758531170594982012-04-29T13:36:34.630+05:302012-04-29T13:36:34.630+05:30@charlieb yes, I've tried to ensure that exact...@charlieb yes, I've tried to ensure that exactly one person is in the room but not both. English can be ambiguous, so probably both of us are correct in our own interpretations.himanshuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909790425038294533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8342347821869463061.post-73392874479563392602012-04-28T22:26:59.668+05:302012-04-28T22:26:59.668+05:30For 3a) I have ¬(A∧B):
(A∧B) - both are in the r...For 3a) I have ¬(A∧B): <br /> (A∧B) - both are in the room<br /> ¬(A∧B) - not both in the room<br /><br />(A∨B)∧¬(A∧B) - I think you've constructed an "exclusive or" so one of them must be in the room. I think the statement "Alice and Bob are not both in the room" admits the possibility of neither being in the room.charliebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06848499460087138279noreply@blogger.com