How am I thinking of De Morgan's second law in the wrong way?De Morgan's law on infinite unions and intersectionsDe Morgan's Second lawSome questions about the Jech's book (Generalized De Morgan's law and distributive law )Using logical Properties to prove a tautologyProving De Morgan's law with the minus signPropositional Logic QuestionI need help verifying the answers to these exercises [Velleman, Chapter 1.1, Q5]Clarification needed regarding DeMorgan's LawCorollary of the De Morgan's LawsShow if set is countable or uncountable
Does this video of collapsing warehouse shelves show a real incident?
Intuition behind counterexample of Euler's sum of powers conjecture
An alternative proof of an application of Hahn-Banach
How to secure an aircraft at a transient parking space?
Why does the negative sign arise in this thermodynamic relation?
How did Alan Turing break the enigma code using the hint given by the lady in the bar?
Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?
Bash script should only kill those instances of another script's that it has launched
Reverse string, can I make it faster?
Conservation of Mass and Energy
Doesn't allowing a user mode program to access kernel space memory and execute the IN and OUT instructions defeat the purpose of having CPU modes?
How strictly should I take "Candidates must be local"?
Can Mathematica be used to create an Artistic 3D extrusion from a 2D image and wrap a line pattern around it?
List elements digit difference sort
Good for you! in Russian
Does "Until when" sound natural for native speakers?
Why doesn't this Google Translate ad use the word "Translation" instead of "Translate"?
Counting all the hearts
Why was Goose renamed from Chewie for the Captain Marvel film?
If I receive an SOS signal, what is the proper response?
Contract Factories
Is it "Vierergruppe" or "Viergruppe", or is there a distinction?
Why does liquid water form when we exhale on a mirror?
Do items de-spawn in Diablo?
How am I thinking of De Morgan's second law in the wrong way?
De Morgan's law on infinite unions and intersectionsDe Morgan's Second lawSome questions about the Jech's book (Generalized De Morgan's law and distributive law )Using logical Properties to prove a tautologyProving De Morgan's law with the minus signPropositional Logic QuestionI need help verifying the answers to these exercises [Velleman, Chapter 1.1, Q5]Clarification needed regarding DeMorgan's LawCorollary of the De Morgan's LawsShow if set is countable or uncountable
$begingroup$
I am having a difficult time comprehending De Morgan's second law:
(A n B)' = A' u B' or ¬
(
P
and
Q
)
⇔
(
¬
P
)
or
(
¬
Q
)
I am having a difficult time grasping this law because through my own (flawed) interpretation of it, I have come up with examples in which the law doesn't hold. For example, according to the law, the following statement is true:
(I do not like shrimp and ice cream is to say that I do not like shrimp or
I do not like ice cream.)
The intuition is that if I don't like shrimp and ice cream, then I must dislike at least one of those things. However, I actually love shrimp and I love ice cream, but the combination/intersection of those foods is something I find quite gross.
So where am I going wrong here? I just can't escape/get around the notion that negating the intersection of two sets does not necessarily imply negating one set or the other. I even tried some computations in set theory to see if both statements calculated the same result and they didn't. For example:
Let the universal set, U, be all the letters of the English alphabet.
Let the following sets be created:
Set A = a, b, c, d
Set B = b, c, d, e
Let us apply the formulas which constitute De Morgan's second law:
(A n B) = b, c, d
(A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d
A' = x: x is the set of all English letters except, a, b, c, d
B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d, e
A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
Conclusion: (A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d and A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
(A n B)' does not equal A' u B'
I feel so frustrated that I cannot figure out where my reasoning is going wrong. Any help is extremely appreciated. Please break down my thinking as far as you want to and show me where there is a gap in my logic and where I fail to proceed correctly. Thank you!
Best,
AJ
elementary-set-theory logic
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am having a difficult time comprehending De Morgan's second law:
(A n B)' = A' u B' or ¬
(
P
and
Q
)
⇔
(
¬
P
)
or
(
¬
Q
)
I am having a difficult time grasping this law because through my own (flawed) interpretation of it, I have come up with examples in which the law doesn't hold. For example, according to the law, the following statement is true:
(I do not like shrimp and ice cream is to say that I do not like shrimp or
I do not like ice cream.)
The intuition is that if I don't like shrimp and ice cream, then I must dislike at least one of those things. However, I actually love shrimp and I love ice cream, but the combination/intersection of those foods is something I find quite gross.
So where am I going wrong here? I just can't escape/get around the notion that negating the intersection of two sets does not necessarily imply negating one set or the other. I even tried some computations in set theory to see if both statements calculated the same result and they didn't. For example:
Let the universal set, U, be all the letters of the English alphabet.
Let the following sets be created:
Set A = a, b, c, d
Set B = b, c, d, e
Let us apply the formulas which constitute De Morgan's second law:
(A n B) = b, c, d
(A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d
A' = x: x is the set of all English letters except, a, b, c, d
B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d, e
A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
Conclusion: (A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d and A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
(A n B)' does not equal A' u B'
I feel so frustrated that I cannot figure out where my reasoning is going wrong. Any help is extremely appreciated. Please break down my thinking as far as you want to and show me where there is a gap in my logic and where I fail to proceed correctly. Thank you!
Best,
AJ
elementary-set-theory logic
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am having a difficult time comprehending De Morgan's second law:
(A n B)' = A' u B' or ¬
(
P
and
Q
)
⇔
(
¬
P
)
or
(
¬
Q
)
I am having a difficult time grasping this law because through my own (flawed) interpretation of it, I have come up with examples in which the law doesn't hold. For example, according to the law, the following statement is true:
(I do not like shrimp and ice cream is to say that I do not like shrimp or
I do not like ice cream.)
The intuition is that if I don't like shrimp and ice cream, then I must dislike at least one of those things. However, I actually love shrimp and I love ice cream, but the combination/intersection of those foods is something I find quite gross.
So where am I going wrong here? I just can't escape/get around the notion that negating the intersection of two sets does not necessarily imply negating one set or the other. I even tried some computations in set theory to see if both statements calculated the same result and they didn't. For example:
Let the universal set, U, be all the letters of the English alphabet.
Let the following sets be created:
Set A = a, b, c, d
Set B = b, c, d, e
Let us apply the formulas which constitute De Morgan's second law:
(A n B) = b, c, d
(A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d
A' = x: x is the set of all English letters except, a, b, c, d
B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d, e
A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
Conclusion: (A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d and A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
(A n B)' does not equal A' u B'
I feel so frustrated that I cannot figure out where my reasoning is going wrong. Any help is extremely appreciated. Please break down my thinking as far as you want to and show me where there is a gap in my logic and where I fail to proceed correctly. Thank you!
Best,
AJ
elementary-set-theory logic
New contributor
$endgroup$
I am having a difficult time comprehending De Morgan's second law:
(A n B)' = A' u B' or ¬
(
P
and
Q
)
⇔
(
¬
P
)
or
(
¬
Q
)
I am having a difficult time grasping this law because through my own (flawed) interpretation of it, I have come up with examples in which the law doesn't hold. For example, according to the law, the following statement is true:
(I do not like shrimp and ice cream is to say that I do not like shrimp or
I do not like ice cream.)
The intuition is that if I don't like shrimp and ice cream, then I must dislike at least one of those things. However, I actually love shrimp and I love ice cream, but the combination/intersection of those foods is something I find quite gross.
So where am I going wrong here? I just can't escape/get around the notion that negating the intersection of two sets does not necessarily imply negating one set or the other. I even tried some computations in set theory to see if both statements calculated the same result and they didn't. For example:
Let the universal set, U, be all the letters of the English alphabet.
Let the following sets be created:
Set A = a, b, c, d
Set B = b, c, d, e
Let us apply the formulas which constitute De Morgan's second law:
(A n B) = b, c, d
(A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d
A' = x: x is the set of all English letters except, a, b, c, d
B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d, e
A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
Conclusion: (A n B)' = x: x is the set of all English letters except b, c, d and A' u B' = x: x is the set of all English letters except a, b, c, d, e
(A n B)' does not equal A' u B'
I feel so frustrated that I cannot figure out where my reasoning is going wrong. Any help is extremely appreciated. Please break down my thinking as far as you want to and show me where there is a gap in my logic and where I fail to proceed correctly. Thank you!
Best,
AJ
elementary-set-theory logic
elementary-set-theory logic
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.7k8160250
65.7k8160250
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Aj LongAj Long
132
132
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're making a mistake when you work out what $A' cup B'$ is.
You don't union the "excepts", but rather what is leftover. $A'$ is the set of letters from $e$ to $z$. $B'$ is the set of letters $a$ plus $f$ to $z$. So the union is $a$ plus the letters from $e$ to $z$. That is very different from "all letters except a,b,d,c,e.$
You stuck a "union" inside the word "except", but "except" is a "not" and DeMorgan is about dealing with "not's", so you can't be so cavalier here.
Edit: For your ice cream and shrimp example. You're using "and" in two different ways. Is it "I like ice cream and I like shrimp" or is it "I like shrimp in my ice cream"?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're misinterpreting "I do not like shrimp and ice cream" due to how informal language can be. "I do not like having shrimp with ice cream" would be the correct statement that you are referring to, and it's not $Awedge B$, it is one statement. Now let statement $A$ be "I like ice cream", and statement $B$ be " I like shrimp", then $A wedge B$ is "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", the negation of this is that you do not like both, but you may like one of them or neither, thus it fits $barA vee barB$.
As for your second example, you are once again making a mistake. $overlineAwedge B$ is indeed all letters except $b,c,d$, but $barAvee barB$ is not all letters except $a,b,c,d,e$, that would be $overlineAvee B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To elaborate on the "ice cream and shrimp" part: let's break it down into the the different logical components. Set:
beginalign*
P = text"I like ice cream" &&
Q = text"I like shrimp"
endalign*
Now, the conjunction of these to statements, $P wedge Q$, is usually read as: "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", and in English, this can sometimes be shortened to "I like ice cream and shrimp".
However, saying "I like ice cream and shrimp" can have a second meaning: "I like ice cream combined with shrimp". This is important, so I'll reiterate: in English, the sentence "I like ice cream and shrimp" can be interpreted in two ways:
- I like ice cream and I like shrimp
- I like ice cream combined with shrimp
The first one is the correct interpretation of $P wedge Q$. To convince yourself on this, consider that $P wedge Q$ is the statement which is true if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are both true. As you remarked, you like shrimp and you like ice cream, but you don't like shrimp and ice cream mixed together. So if the second statement represented $P wedge Q$, we'd have that $P$ is true and $Q$ is true, but $P wedge Q$ is false. This is nonsense!
So, to interpret $neg (P wedge Q)$, instead of saying "I don't like shrimp and ice cream", it might be clearer to say "It is not true that I like shrimp and ice cream", or better yet, "It is not true that (I like shrimp and I like ice cream)". Then you should clearly see that this is equivalent to the statement that you either dislike shrimp or dislike ice cream.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Aj Long is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3141654%2fhow-am-i-thinking-of-de-morgans-second-law-in-the-wrong-way%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're making a mistake when you work out what $A' cup B'$ is.
You don't union the "excepts", but rather what is leftover. $A'$ is the set of letters from $e$ to $z$. $B'$ is the set of letters $a$ plus $f$ to $z$. So the union is $a$ plus the letters from $e$ to $z$. That is very different from "all letters except a,b,d,c,e.$
You stuck a "union" inside the word "except", but "except" is a "not" and DeMorgan is about dealing with "not's", so you can't be so cavalier here.
Edit: For your ice cream and shrimp example. You're using "and" in two different ways. Is it "I like ice cream and I like shrimp" or is it "I like shrimp in my ice cream"?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're making a mistake when you work out what $A' cup B'$ is.
You don't union the "excepts", but rather what is leftover. $A'$ is the set of letters from $e$ to $z$. $B'$ is the set of letters $a$ plus $f$ to $z$. So the union is $a$ plus the letters from $e$ to $z$. That is very different from "all letters except a,b,d,c,e.$
You stuck a "union" inside the word "except", but "except" is a "not" and DeMorgan is about dealing with "not's", so you can't be so cavalier here.
Edit: For your ice cream and shrimp example. You're using "and" in two different ways. Is it "I like ice cream and I like shrimp" or is it "I like shrimp in my ice cream"?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're making a mistake when you work out what $A' cup B'$ is.
You don't union the "excepts", but rather what is leftover. $A'$ is the set of letters from $e$ to $z$. $B'$ is the set of letters $a$ plus $f$ to $z$. So the union is $a$ plus the letters from $e$ to $z$. That is very different from "all letters except a,b,d,c,e.$
You stuck a "union" inside the word "except", but "except" is a "not" and DeMorgan is about dealing with "not's", so you can't be so cavalier here.
Edit: For your ice cream and shrimp example. You're using "and" in two different ways. Is it "I like ice cream and I like shrimp" or is it "I like shrimp in my ice cream"?
$endgroup$
You're making a mistake when you work out what $A' cup B'$ is.
You don't union the "excepts", but rather what is leftover. $A'$ is the set of letters from $e$ to $z$. $B'$ is the set of letters $a$ plus $f$ to $z$. So the union is $a$ plus the letters from $e$ to $z$. That is very different from "all letters except a,b,d,c,e.$
You stuck a "union" inside the word "except", but "except" is a "not" and DeMorgan is about dealing with "not's", so you can't be so cavalier here.
Edit: For your ice cream and shrimp example. You're using "and" in two different ways. Is it "I like ice cream and I like shrimp" or is it "I like shrimp in my ice cream"?
answered 2 days ago
B. GoddardB. Goddard
19.5k21442
19.5k21442
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're misinterpreting "I do not like shrimp and ice cream" due to how informal language can be. "I do not like having shrimp with ice cream" would be the correct statement that you are referring to, and it's not $Awedge B$, it is one statement. Now let statement $A$ be "I like ice cream", and statement $B$ be " I like shrimp", then $A wedge B$ is "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", the negation of this is that you do not like both, but you may like one of them or neither, thus it fits $barA vee barB$.
As for your second example, you are once again making a mistake. $overlineAwedge B$ is indeed all letters except $b,c,d$, but $barAvee barB$ is not all letters except $a,b,c,d,e$, that would be $overlineAvee B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're misinterpreting "I do not like shrimp and ice cream" due to how informal language can be. "I do not like having shrimp with ice cream" would be the correct statement that you are referring to, and it's not $Awedge B$, it is one statement. Now let statement $A$ be "I like ice cream", and statement $B$ be " I like shrimp", then $A wedge B$ is "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", the negation of this is that you do not like both, but you may like one of them or neither, thus it fits $barA vee barB$.
As for your second example, you are once again making a mistake. $overlineAwedge B$ is indeed all letters except $b,c,d$, but $barAvee barB$ is not all letters except $a,b,c,d,e$, that would be $overlineAvee B$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're misinterpreting "I do not like shrimp and ice cream" due to how informal language can be. "I do not like having shrimp with ice cream" would be the correct statement that you are referring to, and it's not $Awedge B$, it is one statement. Now let statement $A$ be "I like ice cream", and statement $B$ be " I like shrimp", then $A wedge B$ is "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", the negation of this is that you do not like both, but you may like one of them or neither, thus it fits $barA vee barB$.
As for your second example, you are once again making a mistake. $overlineAwedge B$ is indeed all letters except $b,c,d$, but $barAvee barB$ is not all letters except $a,b,c,d,e$, that would be $overlineAvee B$.
$endgroup$
You're misinterpreting "I do not like shrimp and ice cream" due to how informal language can be. "I do not like having shrimp with ice cream" would be the correct statement that you are referring to, and it's not $Awedge B$, it is one statement. Now let statement $A$ be "I like ice cream", and statement $B$ be " I like shrimp", then $A wedge B$ is "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", the negation of this is that you do not like both, but you may like one of them or neither, thus it fits $barA vee barB$.
As for your second example, you are once again making a mistake. $overlineAwedge B$ is indeed all letters except $b,c,d$, but $barAvee barB$ is not all letters except $a,b,c,d,e$, that would be $overlineAvee B$.
answered 2 days ago
lightxbulblightxbulb
1,125311
1,125311
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To elaborate on the "ice cream and shrimp" part: let's break it down into the the different logical components. Set:
beginalign*
P = text"I like ice cream" &&
Q = text"I like shrimp"
endalign*
Now, the conjunction of these to statements, $P wedge Q$, is usually read as: "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", and in English, this can sometimes be shortened to "I like ice cream and shrimp".
However, saying "I like ice cream and shrimp" can have a second meaning: "I like ice cream combined with shrimp". This is important, so I'll reiterate: in English, the sentence "I like ice cream and shrimp" can be interpreted in two ways:
- I like ice cream and I like shrimp
- I like ice cream combined with shrimp
The first one is the correct interpretation of $P wedge Q$. To convince yourself on this, consider that $P wedge Q$ is the statement which is true if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are both true. As you remarked, you like shrimp and you like ice cream, but you don't like shrimp and ice cream mixed together. So if the second statement represented $P wedge Q$, we'd have that $P$ is true and $Q$ is true, but $P wedge Q$ is false. This is nonsense!
So, to interpret $neg (P wedge Q)$, instead of saying "I don't like shrimp and ice cream", it might be clearer to say "It is not true that I like shrimp and ice cream", or better yet, "It is not true that (I like shrimp and I like ice cream)". Then you should clearly see that this is equivalent to the statement that you either dislike shrimp or dislike ice cream.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To elaborate on the "ice cream and shrimp" part: let's break it down into the the different logical components. Set:
beginalign*
P = text"I like ice cream" &&
Q = text"I like shrimp"
endalign*
Now, the conjunction of these to statements, $P wedge Q$, is usually read as: "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", and in English, this can sometimes be shortened to "I like ice cream and shrimp".
However, saying "I like ice cream and shrimp" can have a second meaning: "I like ice cream combined with shrimp". This is important, so I'll reiterate: in English, the sentence "I like ice cream and shrimp" can be interpreted in two ways:
- I like ice cream and I like shrimp
- I like ice cream combined with shrimp
The first one is the correct interpretation of $P wedge Q$. To convince yourself on this, consider that $P wedge Q$ is the statement which is true if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are both true. As you remarked, you like shrimp and you like ice cream, but you don't like shrimp and ice cream mixed together. So if the second statement represented $P wedge Q$, we'd have that $P$ is true and $Q$ is true, but $P wedge Q$ is false. This is nonsense!
So, to interpret $neg (P wedge Q)$, instead of saying "I don't like shrimp and ice cream", it might be clearer to say "It is not true that I like shrimp and ice cream", or better yet, "It is not true that (I like shrimp and I like ice cream)". Then you should clearly see that this is equivalent to the statement that you either dislike shrimp or dislike ice cream.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To elaborate on the "ice cream and shrimp" part: let's break it down into the the different logical components. Set:
beginalign*
P = text"I like ice cream" &&
Q = text"I like shrimp"
endalign*
Now, the conjunction of these to statements, $P wedge Q$, is usually read as: "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", and in English, this can sometimes be shortened to "I like ice cream and shrimp".
However, saying "I like ice cream and shrimp" can have a second meaning: "I like ice cream combined with shrimp". This is important, so I'll reiterate: in English, the sentence "I like ice cream and shrimp" can be interpreted in two ways:
- I like ice cream and I like shrimp
- I like ice cream combined with shrimp
The first one is the correct interpretation of $P wedge Q$. To convince yourself on this, consider that $P wedge Q$ is the statement which is true if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are both true. As you remarked, you like shrimp and you like ice cream, but you don't like shrimp and ice cream mixed together. So if the second statement represented $P wedge Q$, we'd have that $P$ is true and $Q$ is true, but $P wedge Q$ is false. This is nonsense!
So, to interpret $neg (P wedge Q)$, instead of saying "I don't like shrimp and ice cream", it might be clearer to say "It is not true that I like shrimp and ice cream", or better yet, "It is not true that (I like shrimp and I like ice cream)". Then you should clearly see that this is equivalent to the statement that you either dislike shrimp or dislike ice cream.
$endgroup$
To elaborate on the "ice cream and shrimp" part: let's break it down into the the different logical components. Set:
beginalign*
P = text"I like ice cream" &&
Q = text"I like shrimp"
endalign*
Now, the conjunction of these to statements, $P wedge Q$, is usually read as: "I like ice cream and I like shrimp", and in English, this can sometimes be shortened to "I like ice cream and shrimp".
However, saying "I like ice cream and shrimp" can have a second meaning: "I like ice cream combined with shrimp". This is important, so I'll reiterate: in English, the sentence "I like ice cream and shrimp" can be interpreted in two ways:
- I like ice cream and I like shrimp
- I like ice cream combined with shrimp
The first one is the correct interpretation of $P wedge Q$. To convince yourself on this, consider that $P wedge Q$ is the statement which is true if and only if $P$ and $Q$ are both true. As you remarked, you like shrimp and you like ice cream, but you don't like shrimp and ice cream mixed together. So if the second statement represented $P wedge Q$, we'd have that $P$ is true and $Q$ is true, but $P wedge Q$ is false. This is nonsense!
So, to interpret $neg (P wedge Q)$, instead of saying "I don't like shrimp and ice cream", it might be clearer to say "It is not true that I like shrimp and ice cream", or better yet, "It is not true that (I like shrimp and I like ice cream)". Then you should clearly see that this is equivalent to the statement that you either dislike shrimp or dislike ice cream.
answered 2 days ago
SamboSambo
2,3112532
2,3112532
add a comment |
add a comment |
Aj Long is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aj Long is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aj Long is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aj Long is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3141654%2fhow-am-i-thinking-of-de-morgans-second-law-in-the-wrong-way%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Please use MathJax to format your question.
$endgroup$
– Alex Provost
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@AlexProvost - My apologies. I will. I am new to this website and still learning how.
$endgroup$
– Aj Long
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to MSE! For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, e.g., basic help on mathjax notation, mathjax tutorial and quick reference, main meta site math tutorial and equation editing how-to.
$endgroup$
– Sambo
2 days ago