For 25:33, could we write: \/x [dog(x) ^ >intelligent(x) ] "for all dogs their is no intelligent ones" and >]x [dog(x)--->intelligent(x) ] "there exists no dog that is intelligent" ?
@gitasclasses7750
2 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@rajeshjavvadi9397
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent Madam Your Class.....
@gitasclasses7750
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@mohammedabdulrasheed910
2 жыл бұрын
At 24:40 is it correct to write "not all x spends more than 5 hours every weekday in class" ?
@gitasclasses7750
2 жыл бұрын
No, you have to be specific about the symbols. Here negation is given. So that should be specified. Means almost the same. But your sentence gives the impression that there may or may not be.
@veerrajuannamdevula9939
3 жыл бұрын
Mam for there is a politician can't we assume like this? P(x):x is a politician H(x):x is honest There exists x[P(x) and H(x)]
@gitasclasses7750
3 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@veerrajuannamdevula9939
3 жыл бұрын
@@gitasclasses7750 thank you mam
@Omprakash-tp5wc
2 жыл бұрын
10:55 ma'am why can't we write the notation as ∃w ∃f ∀a please reply ..
@gitasclasses7750
2 жыл бұрын
You can write.
@Omprakash-tp5wc
2 жыл бұрын
@@gitasclasses7750 ok ma'am
@SAi-wk8zo
Жыл бұрын
Ma'am for "No dogs are intelligent" can we write: let x be domain of all dogs / I(x): x is intelligent so.... \/x ¬(I(x)) ???
@gitasclasses7750
Жыл бұрын
Yes.
@mohammedazeemuddin3609
3 жыл бұрын
Mam, I have a doubt 26:15 we need to write, “No dog is intelligent” Can’t we write it like: “All dogs are intelligent” and give negation before it
@bigshot_07
3 жыл бұрын
Generally we can but that questions has mentiond : 1)using no universal quantifier 2)no exsistential quatifier we need to remove both of 'em in given order if we do in your way we will be left with exsistential after solving
Пікірлер: 16