translation
From: nsgi_2004 (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: NKProductionZ: "string length question"
- Previous message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: translation"
- Reply: fishfry: "Re: translation"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: translation"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:16:06 -0700
"For all sets A and B, there is a function f that maps A onto B."
I'm supposed to translate that into logic symbols. My question is, do I
treat A and B as a single object? Or do I rephrase as:
For all sets A and for all sets B, there is a function f that maps A onto B.
Then my translation: Let U denote the universal quantifier and 3 denote the
existential quantifier:
(UA and UB)3f, f(A)--->B
Is that correct?
One thing that makes me wonder if I'm not suppose to have the "and" is that
this section on quantifiers comes before the section on the logical
operators, such as and. So I'm wondering if I should be using it yet.
- Next message: NKProductionZ: "string length question"
- Previous message: Chan-Ho Suh: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: translation"
- Reply: fishfry: "Re: translation"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: translation"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
