Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

advanced formal logic some and most inference

cynthia.wu82cynthia.wu82 Free Trial Member
in General 50 karma

Hi guys,
I am confused with a logic inference.
According to a book, if A, then not B, can be notated like A-->/B or A<-|->B. However, in 7sage, it is maybe notated like A<--->/B.

Here's the question.
1. E<-|->F--> G -->H (the original one)

According to the question key, the inference is,
G<--s-->/E
F-->H
H<--s-->/E

But, if we use E-->/F to replace the part of E<-|->F (because according to the very beginning of the post,A-->/B AND A<-|->B are actually the same thing ), we get,

  1. E-->/F--> G -->H (the replaced first )
    then the inference are,
    E-->G-->H (this is very difference with the original above, which is not inference can be made like this)
    E-->H (Which according to the original above, there is not such inference can be made like this)
    /F-->H (which is different from the above original inference which is F-->H)

However, if we replace the original part of E<-|->F with E<--->/F, interestingly, the inference different with above two.

Here we have:

E<--->/F--> G -->H
and the inference we have are
except we can make the exactly same inference with the 2 ones, we also can infer that,
G<--s-->/F
G<--s-->E
E<--s-->H

these inferences are totally different with the original ones.

the trick thing is according to the book, E<-|->F is the same with E-->/F, and according to 7sage, actually E<-|->F is E<--->/F, which leading to the hypothesis that if we replace the E<-|->F to whatever these two different versions, the inferences made should be the same. Who can please clarify me?

Thank you!

Cynthia

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    edited May 2017 10806 karma

    @"cynthia.wu82" said:
    Hi guys,
    I am confused with a logic inference.
    According to a book, if A, then not B, can be notated like A-->/B or A<-|->B. However, in 7sage, it is maybe notated like A<--->/B.

    Here's the question.
    1. E<-|->F--> G -->H (the original one)

    According to the question key, the inference is,
    G<--s-->/E
    F-->H
    H<--s-->/E

    But, if we use E-->/F to replace the part of E<-|->F (because according to the very beginning of the post,A-->/B AND A<-|->B are actually the same thing ), we get,

    1. E-->/F--> G -->H (the replaced first )
      then the inference are,
      E-->G-->H (this is very difference with the original above, which is not inference can be made like this)

    I think over here you are making the mistake of equating F--->G
    and linking it in this chain with /F--->G
    In the first chain All things F are G
    In the second sentence you have linked up all things "not F" are G.
    They mean two different things.

    If you write it according to the first sentence:
    F-->G-->H
    and if you link it up with E--->/F you will get:
    F--->G----->H and F--->/E (contrapositive of the above sentence helps me to see the inference better)

    if all of F is G and all of F is /E, then we know there is at lease a some intersection between G and E. (G <-s->/E)
    and if all of F is H and all of F is /E, the again there is a some intersection between H and /E. (H <-s-> /E)

    *These statements are equivalent to the inferences you derived in your first example.
    I hope this helps.

  • cynthia.wu82cynthia.wu82 Free Trial Member
    50 karma

    my question is whether E<-|->F, E<--->/F, and E--->/F are the same thing?
    in other words, should the" if A, then not B" be biconditional notated?

  • Heart Shaped BoxHeart Shaped Box Alum Member ⭐
    edited May 2017 2426 karma

    No, it's not a Bi-conditional. If A then not B is a not both rule: A ---> B, for it's not clear if it's required for A to even show up. "If...then..." is a conditional itself. The meaning of this statement does not equate a bi-conditional.

    Sami gave you a much more detailed breakdown of the inferences and possible errors made due to the confusion on the concept. It does a much better job of explaining the nuances on the logic.

Sign In or Register to comment.