I would have to say that this notation is false. Let us take a closer look at this. Let us think of every cell in the cat as the set A and every set in the mouse as the set B. if the cat had eaten that mouse then it would be proper to say B⊂A. However the cat did not eat the mouse and therefore B⊂A^c (if we consider A+B=U). Another way to say this is to use eaten as a function and say E(M) or ~E(M). Thus, ∃!C:~E(M)
The variables in logic represent propositions or claims, not single words. I assume you're trying to write the proposition, "The cat has not eaten the mouse". P will be this sentence. Because the sentence has "not" in it, it has a negation, which can be written like this: ~P.
typically marked: - R(c,m) which could be marked just P or -P.
I was in my former video proposing this different way of marking it up: C -E m, kind of more faithful to the original piece of information and to our good everyday ways of understanding things.
I would have to say that this notation is false. Let us take a closer look at this. Let us think of every cell in the cat as the set A and every set in the mouse as the set B. if the cat had eaten that mouse then it would be proper to say B⊂A. However the cat did not eat the mouse and therefore B⊂A^c (if we consider A+B=U). Another way to say this is to use eaten as a function and say E(M) or ~E(M). Thus, ∃!C:~E(M)
yyttr4 1 year ago
The variables in logic represent propositions or claims, not single words. I assume you're trying to write the proposition, "The cat has not eaten the mouse". P will be this sentence. Because the sentence has "not" in it, it has a negation, which can be written like this: ~P.
stanthefisher 2 years ago
The usual way to mark it would be:
not (In Relation to eat) (cat) (mouse)
typically marked: - R(c,m) which could be marked just P or -P.
I was in my former video proposing this different way of marking it up: C -E m, kind of more faithful to the original piece of information and to our good everyday ways of understanding things.
khtervola 2 years ago
I watched your other videos and I can see why I am confused: You are using a higher logic which in itself is compatible with propositional calculus.
stanthefisher 2 years ago
That's retarded! cat not eaten mouse is not even grammatically correct!
ElMajeNica 2 years ago