Predicate Logic Symbolization Summary

Summary of the basic symbolization forms for predicate logic.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• predicate
• logic
• symbolization

[jedivolks]

I am going to take a logic class this semester and its making me angry why we're talking about frogs and their color and making socialy cunstructed sentences and symbols when there are bigger things out there in the universe! I don't know how this is supposed to help me in trying to find the answers of life im looking for... I reconsidering taking this class cuz i think im going to be angry all semester long...:(

[jellologic]

There are many types of logic classes. I teach symbolic logic, which is really just disguised math. Why should you study math? Basic arithmetic is all that most people need, right? My main answer is that working with symbols is weight-lifting for the brain. The value of weight-lifting is not so much that it allows you to lift heavy stuff, rather it's a good all-purpose way to improve physical health. Weight-lifting improves physical fitness, math & logic improve mental fitness.

[jellologic]

For some reason the 360p version of this video flashes in bizarre colors on some computers. Choose 480p to fix the problem. Thanks.

[mixali]

Hello.

Thanks for this. Interesting and easy listening/viewing. I'll be checking your other vids.

About the ambiguity arising in sentences of the type 'All frogs are not green' is that similar to the old sayings 1. 'all is not lost' and 2. 'all that glitters is not gold'?

I take 1. to be aiming at A. 'something is not lost [don't give up]' and 2. to be aiming at B. 'some things that glitter are not gold [so don't love only money etc]'.

But do they symbolise to say other than these?

[jellologic]

Yes, your examples are interesting. They look like they should be universals, but the position of the "not" makes them ambiguous, and in both cases it turns out that the most natural way to understand them is as existentials. Natural languagemaking trouble for logicians at every turn!

[jellologic]

I first reword the sentences as standard universal sentences. I use parentheses and capitalization to distinguish the predicates. I symbolize using the capital "A" as universal quantifier, and ">" as arrow.

1. All (who may VOTE in special municipals) are (PROPERTY owners).

Ax(Vx>Px)

2. All (the ELEVATORS that may be used by employees) are (SERVICE type).

Ax(Ex>Sx)

3. All (who may use the SERVICE elevator) are (EMPLOYEES).

Ax(Sx>Ex)

There are other possibilities that are more complicated.

[tanginumin00]

its like partying and studying at the same time O.O

[Fakenstien]

@jedivolks You're an idiot.

[piplafou]

HA i wrote out Ax(Gf)

[BelligerentStyle]

My logic exam is aproaching and I'm freaking out

[romand123]

@jellologic Thanks for posting this.



[viviannnnnli]

thank you! helped me when i was studying for my final exam in a second year philosophy course :D

[tanginumin00]

on 7

what if there are 2 verbs like

only soccer balls are round balls

where Sx soccer balls

Bx balls

and Rx x is round?

[wtrezel]

@jedivolks - Life --> Get one

[mkhethwam]

I was very disappointed with this video because of its quality! I have a problem with my eyes and having something I need to see flashing in all colours on the screen did me no favours.