Logic

R

Ryan$

Full Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
353
Hi guys, if there's assumption said you're ZOMBIE if you're a parent of both children are yellow. (parent could have maximum two children)
my question, if there's a parent with one children and its color is yellow, is the parent called ZOMBIE? if so why?!

I know if the parent doesn't have children then he's ZOMBIE, but what if he has just one child yellow?(not both)
 
The statement is "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE". That says NOTHING about what happens if you are NOT "the parent of two yellow children". But you also say "I know if the parent doesn't have children then he's a ZOMBIE". How do you know that. Are the other assumptions you haven't told us about?
 
HallsofIvy said:
The statement is "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE". That says NOTHING about what happens if you are NOT "the parent of two yellow children".
Click to expand...

but lemme ask you before that, The statement is "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE". that says nothing about what happens if just one of its children yellow? I mean can I conclude from "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE" that his children must be "Yellow" ?
 
"but lemme ask you before that, The statement is "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE". that says nothing about what happens if just one of its children yellow? I mean can I conclude from "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE" that his children must be "Yellow" ?"
That whose children must be "yellow"? The statement "if p then q" tells you what happens if p is true. it says nothing about what happens if p is not true.

Now you have another question: 'can I conclude from "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children THEN you are a ZOMBIE" that his children must be "Yellow"'. Certainly if the hypothesis, "IF you are the parent of two "yellow" children" is true then his children must be "yellow"! That's obvious!
 
Hi guys, I'm so sorry for posting like this question, but I really "confess" don't have iq that much for thinking rightly!

lets assume I arrived to x=y, then I complete my analysis and did some calculations, I arrived to y=z ;
my question in the book given that x=z, why?
I arrived to x=y
y=z, so why x=z?!!!! can someone explain it to me be senseable analogy to our real life to elaborate why if x=y, y=z then x=z ?!

thanks alot
 
Ryan$ said:
Hi guys, I'm so sorry for posting like this question, but I really "confess" don't have iq that much for thinking rightly!

lets assume I arrived to x=y, then I complete my analysis and did some calculations, I arrived to y=z ;
my question in the book given that x=z, why?
I arrived to x=y
y=z, so why x=z?!!!! can someone explain it to me be senseable analogy to our real life to elaborate why if x=y, y=z then x=z ?!

thanks alot
Click to expand...
Please define x, y & z.

Please also define "=" according to your text book or your understanding.
 
Ryan$ said:
Hi guys, I'm so sorry for posting like this question, but I really "confess" don't have iq that much for thinking rightly!

lets assume I arrived to x=y, then I complete my analysis and did some calculations, I arrived to y=z ;
my question in the book given that x=z, why?
I arrived to x=y
y=z, so why x=z?!!!! can someone explain it to me be senseable analogy to our real life to elaborate why if x=y, y=z then x=z ?!

thanks alot
Click to expand...
You have three pots, all with 3 eggs in them. Lable them x, y, z.

The first pot has 3 eggs in it and the second has 3 eggs, so we can write x = y.

The second pot has 3 eggs and the third has three egss, so we can write y = z.

So we know that x = z. Three eggs in x and three eggs in z.

Unless you want to get into axiomatic set theory, that's about as deep as it goes.

-Dan
 
x,y is variables, "=" is equal like math "=" ..nothing else.
what's struggling me is: yeah x=y right? but who will ensure for me that if I progress in my analysis and arrived to y=z, that's x=y still right? if so then we can say x=z ! but if I didn't change the equation x=y who ensure for me that it's really didn't change that equation and still right for any circumstances ?!

what's confusing me this:
(1) x=y ..so fine with that.
after 5minutes of thinking and analysing problem, I get
(2) y=z

then we conclude that x=z, but what's confusing me why it's that right? who ensures that the first equation is still right and none changed it?! that's what confusing me alot!!!
 
if I didn't change the equation (1), why would it still right?! who ensure that none touch it and change the equation? I mean yeah x=y, but I went to other calculations while thinking and arrived to equation (2) ! but once again who said that equation (1) still satisfying, yeah I didn't change it ..but who said if I didn't change it, then it's still right for other cases/circumstances I got in progress of my solution?!
 
Do you think that the transitive relationship is valid?
If so apply it here. If not, why not?
 
Ryan$ said:
if I didn't change the equation (1), why would it still right?! who ensure that none touch it and change the equation? I mean yeah x=y, but I went to other calculations while thinking and arrived to equation (2) ! but once again who said that equation (1) still satisfying, yeah I didn't change it ..but who said if I didn't change it, then it's still right for other cases/circumstances I got in progress of my solution?!
Click to expand...
In the context of a specific problem, the meanings of x, y, and z do not change. So if x is the same as y, and z is the same as y, and (for purposes of a given problem) the meanings of x, y, and z do not change, then x and z are also the same.

Remember that variables stand for numbers.

[MATH]10 + 7 = 20 - 3.[/MATH]
[MATH]33 - 16 = 20 - 3[/MATH]
So is it true or false that

[MATH]10 + 7 = 33 - 16.[/MATH]
The statement

[MATH]x = y \text { and } z = y \implies x = z[/MATH]
is merely a generalization of that example.
 
Ryan$ said:
... my question in the book given that x=z, why?
Click to expand...
Is that book written in English? (Maybe that's part of your issue.)

If you and I have exactly $1 in our pocket, and somebody else says to you, "I have exactly $1 in my pocket, just like you", then why think the $1 in my pocket would suddenly change. Magic?

;)
 
Hi guys ! I'm so sorry for posting over here like this question, but I don't understand yet the "equal": "=" in math

what's confusing me, why if x=y then we can assign instead of x, y or actually instead of y x ..why is that correct?! may please anyone explain to me what "=" means by an analogy to be more sensitive to me?!
 
When we say [MATH]x = y[/MATH],

we mean that x and y represent the same thing. They are just different names for the same thing. If you own only one dog and it is named Toto, it makes no difference whether you say "my dog" or "Toto" because both refer to the same animal.

By "same thing" in math, we frequently mean "have the same numerical value."

So I can say [MATH]13 + 3 = 21 - 5[/MATH]
because both expressions evaluate to the same result, namely 16.

You seem to be taking something that is easy and making it hard. In the case of 13 + 3 and 21 - 5, the expressions themselves are different, but the value of the expressions is identical. We look beyond the superficial form of the expressions and consider the quantitative meaning represented by the expressions.

So yes we can replace 13 + 3 by 21 - 5 or replace 21 - 5 by 13 + 3 because both expressions are quantitatively identical.
 
JeffM said:
When we say [MATH]x = y[/MATH],

we mean that x and y represent the same thing. They are just different names for the same thing. If you own only one dog and it is named Toto, it makes no difference whether you say "my dog" or "Toto" because both refer to the same animal.

By "same thing" in math, we frequently mean "have the same numerical value."

So I can say [MATH]13 + 3 = 21 - 5[/MATH]
because both expressions evaluate to the same result, namely 16.

You seem to be taking something that is easy and making it hard. In the case of 13 + 3 and 21 - 5, the expressions themselves are different, but the value of the expressions is identical. We look beyond the superficial form of the expressions and consider the quantitative meaning represented by the expressions.

So yes we can replace 13 + 3 by 21 - 5 or replace 21 - 5 by 13 + 3 because both expressions are quantitatively identical.
Click to expand...

I got you !
but lemme ask something else, if I assign "my dog"=z , then we can call "my dog" as z?! what's confusing me, we must define "my dog" =: z and not "my dog" = z ! there's difference between "=" and "=:"(definition in math) .. but it seems the same ? I mean the mean of "=" is the same as "=:" ?!
 
before doing for example x=y , musn't I define it before as x=y and then do in my solution's analysis x=y ?! I mean how can I assume that x=y which I didn't define before x=:y !

is "=" implicitly defining the variable that I'm using?!
 
Could you post an example of a problem that involves the issue that's confusing you? Otherwise it's very hard to understand you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top