A neat identity I happened upon: the negation of an equivalence is equivalent to an exclusive or.
Equivalence: A <--> B
Or (A --> B) & (B --> A)
Or (~A v B) & (~B v A)
Negating this last
~[(~A v B) & (~B v A)]
and then applying DeMorgan's law, we get:
~(~A v B) v ~(~B v A)
Apply DeMorgan again to the parenthesized symbols for:
(A&~B) v (B&~A)
This last offers only mutually exclusive options.
|
|
Some Ryle essay footnotes appear on this site, which is devoted to life after physics.
There is no claim of expertise with respect to the musings on this page. Never use my stuff for homework!
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Trivial but neat
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your example: [(p-->q) + (q --> p)] [~(p-->q) v (~q --> p]).~[q p] Dot means "and." The above can be r...
-
ug76. F.H. Bradley has a sharp retort to the correspondence theory of truth, which he dubs the "copying theory." ...the whole t...
-
ce71. Facts, argued F.H. Bradley, are founded on fallible human perception. Hence any human-perceived fact or truth is subject to the poss...
-
hp35. F.H. Bradley argued that pluralism, as advocated by James, is flawed. For, if in change something really is altered, and, if the al...
No comments:
Post a Comment