Re: translation
From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom#virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Robin Chapman: "Re: Finite rank linear operator"
- Previous message: Muttley: "Re: Demonstrating that 0.999... = 1"
- In reply to: nsgi_2004: "translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:51:27 -0600
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.
How about
UA UB 3f f(A)=B
- Next message: Robin Chapman: "Re: Finite rank linear operator"
- Previous message: Muttley: "Re: Demonstrating that 0.999... = 1"
- In reply to: nsgi_2004: "translation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
