(A new question of the week) A recent question raised some interesting issues related to the contrapositive of a logical statement, and how to negate a statement, similar to some past discussions. What universe you are in makes a big difference!
Having looked at methods for solving four logic puzzles, I’ll close the series with a classic, this one involving five houses, five colors, five countries, five drinks, five cigarettes, and five pets – that’s six attributes to juggle! (Last time, we had only 3 or 5.) Once again, the challenge is to solve it without …
Here are two more logic puzzles similar to those we looked at last time. Each is partly solved, enough to teach how to approach such problems (this time, using tables), but leaving enough of a challenge for you to finish up. What’s new here is that we will be using tables to keep track of …
We have received a number of questions about various kinds of logic puzzles. This week I want to collect several for which we gave hints or partial solutions that demonstrate in detail how to think, without taking away all the fun. These all involve a set of people or objects that have a set of …
One aspect of mathematics that students often struggle with, particularly in geometry (which traditionally has been where proof is introduced), is writing proofs. Why do we need to learn about proofs? Why are proofs needed in the first place? Here are a few answers we’ve given to these questions.
We’ve looked at various aspects of turning English sentences into logical statements, and modifying them by negation, converse, and so on. Let’s finish by looking at some questions about standard rules of inference, such as Modus Ponens and the Law of Syllogism.
(An archive question of the week) Usually when we discuss converses (and inverses and contrapositives) we use clear, idealized examples. But statements in real life — even in real math — are not quite so straightforward. The difficulty is not merely in the language, but in the complexity of our statements. A question in the …
This is the third post in a series on logic, with a focus on how it is expressed in English. We’ve looked at basic ideas of translating between English and logical symbols, and in particular at negation (stating the opposite). Now we are ready to consider how to change a given statement into one of …
Last time, I started a series exploring aspects of the translation of English statements to or from formal logical terms and symbols, which will lead to discussions of converse and contrapositive, and eventually of logical arguments. We’ve looked at how to translate concepts of “or” (disjunction) and “if” (conditional); but our goals will also require …
The next few posts will examine aspects of logic, both symbolic logic, and how we talk about theorems in general. We’ll start here with issues in interpreting the wording of logic, and some of the semantic difficulties we face. English isn’t logical. (Well, I suppose humans in general aren’t logical.)