3 ms·
You may want to check how you normalize or distinguish the logical representations. On the propositional logic quiz I'm presented with choices like these: (R
by Jtsummers 3y ago
You may want to check how you normalize or distinguish the logical representations. On the propositional logic quiz I'm presented with choices like these:
(R ^ L) v N <- incorrect
((R ^ L) v N) <- correct
((S -> G) v H) <- correct
(S -> G) v H <- incorrect
These pairs are the same, the extra parentheses don't change the meaning of the statements but only the ones with the extra parentheses are marked as correct.
- Jtsummers 3y agoFound some information on the actual notation for the book. The extra () fit the notation of the system from Gensler's book apparently. There doesn't appear to be a precedence order for the connectives, except that unary not (~) doesn't need the parens, ~P and P can both standalone. The language he uses requires the extra parentheses whenever using any of v, ^, ->, or == (and, or, implication, equivalence/iff). This is probably a reasonable thing in context because it means the expressions can be cleanly combined as written and probably avoids confusion for students. They don't have to learn a precedence order. So if a student ever arrives at these pair of statements: (P v Q) R And they use and introduction they'll get: ((P v Q) ^ R) No ambiguity, just combine the two as written and wrap in parens. So I'll retract my previous feedback.