Re: translation
From: fishfry (BLOCKSPAMfishfry_at_your-mailbox.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: steven: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Re: Goldbach Idea?"
- In reply to: nsgi_2004: "translation"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:07:41 GMT
In article <bWN3d.31881$aW5.2536@fed1read07>,
"nsgi_2004" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> "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.
>
>
>
Where's the "onto" part?
- Next message: steven: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- Previous message: David Bandel: "Re: Goldbach Idea?"
- In reply to: nsgi_2004: "translation"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
