Timeline for How do I solve logic derivations with disjunctions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28 at 9:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 20 at 3:06 | |||||
| Feb 28 at 10:25 | comment | added | PW_246 | @DavidGudeman why have this site in the first place if people can’t ask questions? | |
| Feb 28 at 4:05 | comment | added | Oscar Nolf | @MichaelCarey, which i did, solved the problem before Michael solved it all out thanks to the comment reminding me about assuming the antecedent. | |
| Feb 28 at 3:55 | answer | added | Michael Carey | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 28 at 3:52 | comment | added | Oscar Nolf | @MichaelCarey We've just learned this, which is probably why im a little confused by it | |
| Feb 28 at 3:52 | comment | added | Oscar Nolf | @Bumble thank you! that actually makes a lot of sense. Ill apply that to the rest of the problems | |
| Feb 28 at 3:46 | comment | added | Oscar Nolf | @DavidGudeman , that was in fact the first thing i did. I'm not exactly sure what you get out of telling me that its a "simple problem". Writing apple is simple to you now, yet you wouldn't belittle a kid learning how to write by telling him that its a simple word to write. I suggest that rather than commenting useless comment like this you look inward and ask yourself why you feel the need to belittle someone trying to understand something. | |
| Feb 28 at 3:44 | comment | added | Michael Carey | ^ They probably can't use the Deduction Theorem here, and are required to apply syllogisms to solve the problem. | |
| Feb 28 at 2:05 | comment | added | Bumble | A good rule of thumb when your conclusion is a conditional is to assume the antecedent, derive the consequent, then discharge the assumption. | |
| Feb 28 at 1:33 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 27 at 3:01 | |||||
| S Feb 28 at 0:15 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 29 at 12:49 | |||||
| S Feb 28 at 0:15 | history | asked | Oscar Nolf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |