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...
-
The following is a proposed proof. Topology's Jordan curve theorem, first proposed in 1887 by Camille Jordan, asserts that an...
-
The well-ordering theorem, also known as Zermelo's theorem, says that every set can be well-ordered. A set X is well-ordered by a strict...
-
Vhu53. In a jibe at empiricists, Leibniz compared them to unreasoning animals. Common souls are ruled like empirics, purely by sense example...
No comments:
Post a Comment