\[\forall A[(A \wedge A)\Leftrightarrow(A\vee A)]\]?
"For all (A and A) if and only if (A or A)." Doesn't really make too much sense.
t/f
U mean for all A?
thats what i mean
Ah, I see, you do mean for all A, sorry...
True
(A and A) TFTF <-- isn't this same as A? (A or A) <--- this is always true. A and A <-----> A or A .... i guess this would be same as A
this is logically equivalent to "for all A|A" ???
Think he is taking a course in logic and set theory?
A=A, let me just prove that.....
true is right
this doesn't make any sense ... UnkleRhaukus you are playing around with logic ... right?
is my grammar off?
where do you use this notation or statement? for all x| ...
um
mathematics?
Usually you would specify a set....
and how are you using it? UnkleRhaukus?
Is this related to your universal set question from before?
i mean for all sets
The expression For all x (x^2 is not 2) is ambiguous because no set has been specified. So you would say For all x in R (for example) and then its false or if you specify N, then it's true.
A and A <===> A<====>A or A ???
I think the problem here (and the other question) is that it is not clear what "universe" we are talking about, math, logic, set theory (which one), etc...
it is true.
does it make sense? for all x|x
when u have a proposition like this \[ \large (\forall x)(P(x)) \] then it is true whenever the predicate P(x) is true for all possible values of x.
\[ \large \forall x|P(x) \] this makes sense but this sounds silly for all x such that x
so in \[ \large (\forall A)[(A\wedge A)\leftrightarrow(A\vee A)] \] we can assume A is a proposition (there is no other option, actually).
in this example \[ \large P(A):(A\wedge A)\leftrightarrow(A\vee A) \] which is a tautology for every proposition A.
sorry i gotta go.
cya
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!