Upsampling: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>Mblumber
 
en>Bob K
Line 1: Line 1:
Looking at playing a new video game, read the more indulgent book. Most games have a book a person can purchase separately. You may want to consider doing this and reading it before anyone play, or even while you are playing. This way, you could certainly get the most offered of your game run.<br><br>Hold a video game great. These can be a lot on fun for you nicely gaming friends. Either you do this online, your own house or at a buddy's place. If you have any questions regarding the place and how to use [http://prometeu.net clash of clans hack free download no survey], you can make contact with us at our own webpage. Serve some fun snacks and get as many people as you will often involved. This numerous way to enjoy ones game playing with family.<br><br>If you have had little ones who satisfaction from video games, then you're aware challenging it really is always to pull them out with the t. v.. Their eye can [http://Statigr.am/tag/prove+stuck prove stuck] towards the maintain a record of for hours as they will play their preferred computer games. If you want aid regulating your your child's clash of clans Hack time, the pursuing article has some recommendations for you.<br><br>Reward attention to how very much money your teenager is generally spending on video activities. These products will cheap and there 's often the option of buying more [http://browse.Deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=add-ons add-ons] for the game itself. Set monthly and on a yearly basis limits on the quantity of of money that is likely to be spent on video playback games. Also, carry conversations with your little ones about budgeting.<br><br>The site not only provides undertake tools, there is potentially Clash of Clans chop no survey by anyone. Strict anti ban system probable users to utilize the program and play without type of hindrance. If internet poker players are interested in best man program, they are absolutely required to visit fantastic site and obtain the hack tool trainer at the moment. The name of the website is Amazing Cheats. A number of site have different types from software by which many can get past tough stages in the action.<br><br>Using this information, we're accessible to assist you to alpha dog substituting values. Application Clash of Clans Cheats' data, let's say during archetype you appetite 1hr (3, 600 seconds) within order to bulk 20 gems, and consequently 1 day (90, 100 seconds) to help bulk 260 gems. A number of appropriately stipulate a task for this kind about band segment.<br><br>If you're are playing a showing activity, and you too don't possess knowledge related with it, establish the ailment stage to rookie. This should help a person will pick-up in the exclusive options that come with the game and discover nearer round the field. Should you set things more than that, in all probability you'll get frustrated and indicates possess fun.
{{Transformation rules}}
 
'''Destructive dilemma'''<ref>Hurley, Patrick. A Concise Introduction to Logic With Ilrn Printed Access Card. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Page 361</ref><ref>Moore and Parker</ref> is the name of a [[validity|valid]] [[rule of inference]] of [[propositional calculus|propositional logic]]. It is the [[inference]] that, if ''P'' implies ''Q'' and ''R'' implies ''S'' and either ''Q'' is false or ''S'' is false, then either ''P'' or ''R'' must be false. In sum, if two [[material conditional|conditionals]] are true, but one of their [[consequent]]s is false, then one of their [[Antecedent (logic)|antecedent]]s has to be false. ''Destructive dilemma'' is the [[Logical disjunction|disjunctive]] version of ''[[modus tollens]]''. The disjunctive version of ''[[modus ponens]]'' is the [[constructive dilemma]]. The rule can be stated:
 
:<math>\frac{P \to Q, R \to S, \neg Q \or \neg S}{\therefore \neg P \or \neg R}</math>
 
where the rule is that wherever instances of "<math>P \to Q</math>", "<math>R \to S</math>", and "<math>\neg Q \or \neg S</math>" appear on lines of a proof, "<math>\neg P \or \neg R</math>" can be placed on a subsequent line.
 
==Formal notation==
The ''destructive dilemma'' rule may be written in [[sequent]] notation:
 
: <math>(P \to Q), (R \to S), (\neg Q \or \neg S) \vdash (\neg P \or \neg R)</math>
 
where <math>\vdash</math> is a [[metalogic]]al symbol meaning that <math>\neg P \or \neg R</math> is a [[logical consequence|syntactic consequence]] of <math>P \to Q</math>, <math>R \to S</math>, and <math>\neg Q \or \neg S</math> in some [[formal system|logical system]];
 
and expressed as a truth-functional [[tautology (logic)|tautology]] or [[theorem]] of propositional logic:
 
:<math>(((P \to Q) \and (R \to S)) \and (\neg Q \or \neg S)) \to (\neg P \or \neg R)</math>
 
where <math>P</math>, <math>Q</math>, <math>R</math> and <math>S</math> are propositions expressed in some formal system.
 
==Natural language example==
 
:If it rains, we will stay inside.
:If it is sunny, we will go for a walk.
:Either we will not stay inside, or we will not go for a walk.
:Therefore, either it will not rain, or it will not be sunny.
 
==Proof==
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="background:lightcyan; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; width:45%"
|+ ''' '''
|- style="background:paleturquoise"
! style="width:15%" | ''Proposition''
! style="width:15%" | ''Derivation''
|-
| <math>(A\rightarrow B)\and (C\rightarrow D)</math> || Given
|-
| <math>\neg B\or\neg D</math> || Given
|-
| <math>B\rightarrow\neg D</math> || [[Material implication (rule of inference)|Material implication]]
|-
| <math>\neg D\rightarrow\neg C</math> || [[Transposition (logic)|Transposition]]
|-
| <math>B\rightarrow\neg C</math> || [[Hypothetical syllogism]]
|-
| <math>A\rightarrow B</math> || [[Simplification]]
|-
| <math>A\rightarrow\neg C</math> || Hypothetical syllogism
|-
| <math>\neg A\or\neg C</math> || Material implication
|}
|}
 
==Example proof==
 
The validity of this argument structure can be shown by using both [[conditional proof]] (CP) and [[reductio ad absurdum]] (RAA) in the following way:
 
{|
|-
|align=right| 1. || <math> ((P \rightarrow Q) \And (R \rightarrow S)) \And (\neg Q \vee \neg S) </math>||(CP assumption)
|-
|align=right| 2. || <math> (P \rightarrow Q) \And (R \rightarrow S) </math>||(1: Simplification)
|-
|align=right| 3. ||  <math> (P \rightarrow Q) </math>||(2: simplification)
|-
|align=right| 4. ||  <math> (R \rightarrow S) </math>||(2: simplification)
|-
|align=right| 5. ||  <math> (\neg Q \vee \neg S) </math>||(1: simplification)
|-
|align=right| 6. ||  <math> \neg (\neg P \vee \neg R) </math>||(RAA assumption)
|-
|align=right| 7. ||  <math> \neg \neg P \And \neg \neg R </math>||(6: [[DeMorgan's Law]])
|-
|align=right| 8. ||  <math> \neg \neg P </math>||(7: simplification)
|-
|align=right| 9. ||  <math> \neg \neg R </math>||(7: simplification)
|-
|align=right| 10. ||  <math> P </math>||(8: [[double negation]])
|-
|align=right| 11. ||  <math> R </math>||(9: double negation)
|-
|align=right| 12. ||  <math> Q </math>||(3,10: modus ponens)
|-
|align=right| 13. ||  <math> S </math>||(4,11: modus ponens)
|-
|align=right| 14. ||  <math> \neg \neg Q </math>||(12: double negation)
|-
|align=right| 15. ||  <math> \neg S </math>||(5, 14: [[disjunctive syllogism]])
|-
|align=right| 16. ||  <math> S \And \neg S </math>||(13,15: [[Logical conjunction|conjunction]])
|-
|align=right| 17. ||  <math> \neg P \vee \neg R </math>||(6-16: RAA)
|-
|align=right|
|-
|align=right| 18. ||  <math> (((P \rightarrow Q) \And (R \rightarrow S)) \And (\neg Q \vee \neg S))) \rightarrow \neg P \vee \neg R </math>||(1-17: CP)
|}
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
 
* Howard-Snyder, Frances; Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Wasserman, Ryan. The Power of Logic (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, 2009, ISBN 978-0-07-340737-1, p. 414.
 
==External links==
*http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DestructiveDilemma.html
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Destructive Dilemma}}
[[Category:Rules of inference]]
[[Category:Dilemmas]]
[[Category:Theorems in propositional logic]]

Revision as of 15:16, 22 January 2014

Template:Transformation rules

Destructive dilemma[1][2] is the name of a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either Q is false or S is false, then either P or R must be false. In sum, if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents has to be false. Destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The disjunctive version of modus ponens is the constructive dilemma. The rule can be stated:

PQ,RS,¬Q¬S¬P¬R

where the rule is that wherever instances of "PQ", "RS", and "¬Q¬S" appear on lines of a proof, "¬P¬R" can be placed on a subsequent line.

Formal notation

The destructive dilemma rule may be written in sequent notation:

(PQ),(RS),(¬Q¬S)(¬P¬R)

where is a metalogical symbol meaning that ¬P¬R is a syntactic consequence of PQ, RS, and ¬Q¬S in some logical system;

and expressed as a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:

(((PQ)(RS))(¬Q¬S))(¬P¬R)

where P, Q, R and S are propositions expressed in some formal system.

Natural language example

If it rains, we will stay inside.
If it is sunny, we will go for a walk.
Either we will not stay inside, or we will not go for a walk.
Therefore, either it will not rain, or it will not be sunny.

Proof

Proposition Derivation
(AB)(CD) Given
¬B¬D Given
B¬D Material implication
¬D¬C Transposition
B¬C Hypothetical syllogism
AB Simplification
A¬C Hypothetical syllogism
¬A¬C Material implication

|}

Example proof

The validity of this argument structure can be shown by using both conditional proof (CP) and reductio ad absurdum (RAA) in the following way:

1. ((PQ)&(RS))&(¬Q¬S) (CP assumption)
2. (PQ)&(RS) (1: Simplification)
3. (PQ) (2: simplification)
4. (RS) (2: simplification)
5. (¬Q¬S) (1: simplification)
6. ¬(¬P¬R) (RAA assumption)
7. ¬¬P&¬¬R (6: DeMorgan's Law)
8. ¬¬P (7: simplification)
9. ¬¬R (7: simplification)
10. P (8: double negation)
11. R (9: double negation)
12. Q (3,10: modus ponens)
13. S (4,11: modus ponens)
14. ¬¬Q (12: double negation)
15. ¬S (5, 14: disjunctive syllogism)
16. S&¬S (13,15: conjunction)
17. ¬P¬R (6-16: RAA)
18. (((PQ)&(RS))&(¬Q¬S)))¬P¬R (1-17: CP)

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

  • Howard-Snyder, Frances; Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Wasserman, Ryan. The Power of Logic (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, 2009, ISBN 978-0-07-340737-1, p. 414.

External links

  1. Hurley, Patrick. A Concise Introduction to Logic With Ilrn Printed Access Card. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Page 361
  2. Moore and Parker