DOCSLIB.ORG

Demonstrate Logical Problem Solving and Error Detection Techniques

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEMONSTRATE LOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING AND ERROR DETECTION TECHNIQUES 115367 PURPOSE OF THE UNIT STANDARD People credited with this unit standard are able to: Describe different approaches to problem solving Use logical operations in descriptions of rules and relationships in problem situations Simplify Boolean expressions with Boolean Algebra and Karnaugh maps Describe the basic concepts of error detection The performance of all elements is to a standard that allows for further learning in this area. LEARNING ASSUMED TO BE IN PLACE AND RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING The credit value of this unit is based on a person having prior knowledge and skills to: Demonstrate understanding of Mathematics, at least at level 3. Apply problem solving strategies UNIT STANDARD RANGE N/A NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020 REV DATE: 01/01/2023 DOC REF: 48872 LM MOD 3 V-1 PAGE 141 INDEX Competence Requirements Page Unit Standard 115367 alignment index Here you will find the different outcomes explained which you need to be proved 143 competent in, in order to complete the Unit Standard 115367. Unit Standard 115367 145 Describe different approaches to problem solving 149 Use logical operations in descriptions of rules and relationships in problem 160 situations Simplify Boolean expressions with Boolean Algebra and Karnaugh maps 182 Describe the basic concepts of error detection 201 Self-assessment Once you have completed all the questions after being facilitated, you need to check the progress you have made. If you feel that you are competent in the areas mentioned, you may tick the blocks, if however, you feel that you require 214 additional knowledge, you need to indicate so in the block below. Show this to your facilitator and make the necessary arrangements to assist you to become competent. NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020 REV DATE: 01/01/2023 DOC REF: 48872 LM MOD 3 V-1 PAGE 142 Unit Standard 115367 – Alignment Index SPECIFIC OUTCOMES AND RELATED ASSESSMENT CRITERIA SO 1 Describe different approaches to problem solving. AC 1 The description identifies the different problem solving techniques. The description identifies situations where specific problem solving techniques would AC 2 be more suitable than others The description utilises the top-down problem solving approach in real life problems AC 3 known to the learner. The description allows for the practice of problem breakdown in picture drawing AC 4 applications. Use logical operators in descriptions of rules and relationships in a problem SO 2 situation. AC 1 Usage describes the logical operators by drawing truth tables AC 2 Usage provides examples of problem situations where a specific operator can be used AC 3 Usage identifies which of the operators should be used to represent given situations. Usage combines different operators to form Boolean expressions by setting up truth AC 4 tables. SO 3 Simplify Boolean expressions with Boolean algebra and Karnaugh maps. AC 1 The simplification describes the rules of Boolean algebra. AC 2 The simplification uses the Boolean algebra rules to simplify given expressions. AC 3 The simplification uses Karnaugh maps to represent Boolean expressions. AC 4 The simplification involves writing down the simplified expression from the map. SO 4 Describe the basic concepts of error detection. AC 1 The description identifies the common causes of errors. AC 2 The description identifies error isolation techniques AC 3 The description identifies various testing techniques NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020 REV DATE: 01/01/2023 DOC REF: 48872 LM MOD 3 V-1 PAGE 143 CRITICAL CROSS FIELD OUTCOMES UNIT STANDARD CCFO IDENTIFYING Identify, solve problems and make decisions in relation to the current systems development environments UNIT STANDARD CCFO ORGANISING Organise and manage him/her self and his/her activities responsibly and effectively UNIT STANDARD CCFO COMMUNICATING Communicate effectively using visual, mathematical and or language skills in the modes of oral and/ or written persuasion when engaging with systems development UNIT STANDARD CCFO DEMONSTRATING Demonstrate an understanding of the world as a set of related systems by recognising that problem solving contexts do not exists in isolation UNIT STANDARD CCFO CONTRIBUTING Contribute to his/her full personal development and the social and economic development of the society at large by being aware of the importance of: reflecting on and exploring a variety of strategies to learn more effectively, exploring education and career opportunities and developing entrepreneurial opportunities ESSENTIAL EMBEDDED KNOWLEDGE 1. Performance of all elements should be performed with a solid understanding of the use of development tools needed in the areas applicable to the unit standard. Examples of such tools are, but is not limited to CASE tools, programming language editors with syntax checking, program source version control systems. 2. Performance of all elements should make use of International capability models used for Software Development. Examples of such models include (but are not limited to) the ISO SPICE model as well as the CMM model for Software Development. NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020 REV DATE: 01/01/2023 DOC REF: 48872 LM MOD 3 V-1 PAGE 144 All qualifications and part qualifications registered on the National Qualifications Framework are public property. Thus the only payment that can be made for them is for service and reproduction. It is illegal to sell this material for profit. If the material is reproduced or quoted, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) should be acknowledged as the source. SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY REGISTERED UNIT STANDARD: Demonstrate logical problem solving and error detection techniques SAQA US UNIT STANDARD TITLE ID 115367 Demonstrate logical problem solving and error detection techniques ORIGINATOR SGB Computer Sciences and Information Systems PRIMARY OR DELEGATED QUALITY ASSURANCE FUNCTIONARY - FIELD SUBFIELD Field 10 - Physical, Mathematical, Computer and Life Sciences Information Technology and Computer Sciences ABET UNIT STANDARD PRE-2009 NQF LEVEL NQF LEVEL CREDITS BAND TYPE Undefined Regular Level 5 Level TBA: Pre-2009 was 8 L5 REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION START REGISTRATION END SAQA DECISION DATE DATE NUMBER Reregistered 2018-07-01 2023-06-30 SAQA 06120/18 LAST DATE FOR ENROLMENT LAST DATE FOR ACHIEVEMENT 2024-06-30 2027-06-30 In all of the tables in this document, both the pre-2009 NQF Level and the NQF Level is shown. In the text (purpose statements, qualification rules, etc), any references to NQF Levels are to the pre-2009 levels unless specifically stated otherwise. This unit standard does not replace any other unit standard and is not replaced by any other unit standard. PURPOSE OF THE UNIT STANDARD People credited with this unit standard are able to: Describe different approaches to problem solving Use logical operations in descriptions of rules and relationships in problem situations Simplify Boolean expressions with Boolean Algebra and Karnaugh maps Describe the basic concepts of error detection The performance of all elements is to a standard that allows for further learning in this area. LEARNING ASSUMED TO BE IN PLACE AND RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING The credit value of this unit is based on a person having prior knowledge and skills to: Demonstrate understanding of Mathematics, at least at level 3. Apply problem solving strategies UNIT STANDARD RANGE N/A Specific Outcomes and Assessment Criteria: SPECIFIC OUTCOME 1 Describe different approaches to problem solving. OUTCOME RANGE Top-down; Bottom-up; Systems Approach (at least two) NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020 REV DATE: 01/01/2023 DOC REF: 48872 LM MOD 3 V-1 PAGE 145 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 The description identifies the different problem solving techniques. ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE As for outcome above ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 The description identifies situations where specific problem solving techniques would be more suitable than others ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE As for outcome above ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 The description utilises the top-down problem solving approach in real life problems known to the learner. ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 The description allows for the practice of problem breakdown in picture drawing applications. ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE Example: Logo, Powerpoint or any other chosen by the learner SPECIFIC OUTCOME 2 Use logical operators in descriptions of rules and relationships in a problem situation. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1 Usage describes the logical operators by drawing truth tables ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE AND; OR; NOT; NOR; XOR; NAND ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2 Usage provides examples of problem situations where a specific operator can be used ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE AND; OR; NOT; NOR; XOR; NAND ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3 Usage identifies which of the operators should be used to represent given situations. ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE AND; OR; NOT; NOR; XOR; NAND ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4 Usage combines different operators to form Boolean expressions by setting up truth tables. ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE AND; OR; NOT SPECIFIC OUTCOME 3 Simplify Boolean expressions with Boolean algebra and Karnaugh maps. OUTCOME RANGE Use up to 4 variables. NC: IT: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR: LEARNER MANUAL REL DATE: 27/01/2020
Recommended publications
  • Gibbardian Collapse and Trivalent Conditionals

    Gibbardian Collapse and Trivalent Conditionals

    Gibbardian Collapse and Trivalent Conditionals Paul Égré* Lorenzo Rossi† Jan Sprenger‡ Abstract This paper discusses the scope and significance of the so-called triviality result stated by Allan Gibbard for indicative conditionals, showing that if a conditional operator satisfies the Law of Import-Export, is supraclassical, and is stronger than the material conditional, then it must collapse to the material conditional. Gib- bard’s result is taken to pose a dilemma for a truth-functional account of indicative conditionals: give up Import-Export, or embrace the two-valued analysis. We show that this dilemma can be averted in trivalent logics of the conditional based on Reichenbach and de Finetti’s idea that a conditional with a false antecedent is undefined. Import-Export and truth-functionality hold without triviality in such logics. We unravel some implicit assumptions in Gibbard’s proof, and discuss a recent generalization of Gibbard’s result due to Branden Fitelson. Keywords: indicative conditional; material conditional; logics of conditionals; triva- lent logic; Gibbardian collapse; Import-Export 1 Introduction The Law of Import-Export denotes the principle that a right-nested conditional of the form A → (B → C) is logically equivalent to the simple conditional (A ∧ B) → C where both antecedentsare united by conjunction. The Law holds in classical logic for material implication, and if there is a logic for the indicative conditional of ordinary language, it appears Import-Export ought to be a part of it. For instance, to use an example from (Cooper 1968, 300), the sentences “If Smith attends and Jones attends then a quorum *Institut Jean-Nicod (CNRS/ENS/EHESS), Département de philosophie & Département d’études cog- arXiv:2006.08746v1 [math.LO] 15 Jun 2020 nitives, Ecole normale supérieure, PSL University, 29 rue d’Ulm, 75005, Paris, France.
  • Glossary for Logic: the Language of Truth

    Glossary for Logic: the Language of Truth

    Glossary for Logic: The Language of Truth This glossary contains explanations of key terms used in the course. (These terms appear in bold in the main text at the point at which they are first used.) To make this glossary more easily searchable, the entry headings has ‘::’ (two colons) before it. So, for example, if you want to find the entry for ‘truth-value’ you should search for ‘:: truth-value’. :: Ambiguous, Ambiguity : An expression or sentence is ambiguous if and only if it can express two or more different meanings. In logic, we are interested in ambiguity relating to truth-conditions. Some sentences in natural languages express more than one claim. Read one way, they express a claim which has one set of truth-conditions. Read another way, they express a different claim with different truth-conditions. :: Antecedent : The first clause in a conditional is its antecedent. In ‘(P ➝ Q)’, ‘P’ is the antecedent. In ‘If it is raining, then we’ll get wet’, ‘It is raining’ is the antecedent. (See ‘Conditional’ and ‘Consequent’.) :: Argument : An argument is a set of claims (equivalently, statements or propositions) made up from premises and conclusion. An argument can have any number of premises (from 0 to indefinitely many) but has only one conclusion. (Note: This is a somewhat artificially restrictive definition of ‘argument’, but it will help to keep our discussions sharp and clear.) We can consider any set of claims (with one claim picked out as conclusion) as an argument: arguments will include sets of claims that no-one has actually advanced or put forward.
  • UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and Notations

    UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and Notations

    UNIT-I Mathematical Logic Statements and notations: A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both). For instance, the following are propositions: “Paris is in France” (true), “London is in Denmark” (false), “2 < 4” (true), “4 = 7 (false)”. However the following are not propositions: “what is your name?” (this is a question), “do your homework” (this is a command), “this sentence is false” (neither true nor false), “x is an even number” (it depends on what x represents), “Socrates” (it is not even a sentence). The truth or falsehood of a proposition is called its truth value. Connectives: Connectives are used for making compound propositions. The main ones are the following (p and q represent given propositions): Name Represented Meaning Negation ¬p “not p” Conjunction p q “p and q” Disjunction p q “p or q (or both)” Exclusive Or p q “either p or q, but not both” Implication p ⊕ q “if p then q” Biconditional p q “p if and only if q” Truth Tables: Logical identity Logical identity is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is true and a value of false if its operand is false. The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows: Logical Identity p p T T F F Logical negation Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.
  • Introduction to Logic

    Introduction to Logic

    IntroductionI Introduction to Logic Propositional calculus (or logic) is the study of the logical Christopher M. Bourke relationship between objects called propositions and forms the basis of all mathematical reasoning. Definition A proposition is a statement that is either true or false, but not both (we usually denote a proposition by letters; p, q, r, s, . .). Computer Science & Engineering 235 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics [email protected] IntroductionII ExamplesI Example (Propositions) Definition I 2 + 2 = 4 I The derivative of sin x is cos x. The value of a proposition is called its truth value; denoted by T or I 6 has 2 factors 1 if it is true and F or 0 if it is false. Opinions, interrogative and imperative sentences are not Example (Not Propositions) propositions. I C++ is the best language. I When is the pretest? I Do your homework. ExamplesII Logical Connectives Connectives are used to create a compound proposition from two Example (Propositions?) or more other propositions. I Negation (denoted or !) ¬ I 2 + 2 = 5 I And (denoted ) or Logical Conjunction ∧ I Every integer is divisible by 12. I Or (denoted ) or Logical Disjunction ∨ I Microsoft is an excellent company. I Exclusive Or (XOR, denoted ) ⊕ I Implication (denoted ) → I Biconditional; “if and only if” (denoted ) ↔ Negation Logical And A proposition can be negated. This is also a proposition. We usually denote the negation of a proposition p by p. ¬ The logical connective And is true only if both of the propositions are true. It is also referred to as a conjunction. Example (Negated Propositions) Example (Logical Connective: And) I Today is not Monday.
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
  • Three Ways of Being Non-Material

    Three Ways of Being Non-Material

    Three Ways of Being Non-Material Vincenzo Crupi, Andrea Iacona May 2019 This paper presents a novel unified account of three distinct non-material inter- pretations of `if then': the suppositional interpretation, the evidential interpre- tation, and the strict interpretation. We will spell out and compare these three interpretations within a single formal framework which rests on fairly uncontro- versial assumptions, in that it requires nothing but propositional logic and the probability calculus. As we will show, each of the three intrerpretations exhibits specific logical features that deserve separate consideration. In particular, the evidential interpretation as we understand it | a precise and well defined ver- sion of it which has never been explored before | significantly differs both from the suppositional interpretation and from the strict interpretation. 1 Preliminaries Although it is widely taken for granted that indicative conditionals as they are used in ordinary language do not behave as material conditionals, there is little agreement on the nature and the extent of such deviation. Different theories tend to privilege different intuitions about conditionals, and there is no obvious answer to the question of which of them is the correct theory. In this paper, we will compare three interpretations of `if then': the suppositional interpretation, the evidential interpretation, and the strict interpretation. These interpretations may be regarded either as three distinct meanings that ordinary speakers attach to `if then', or as three ways of explicating a single indeterminate meaning by replacing it with a precise and well defined counterpart. Here is a rough and informal characterization of the three interpretations. According to the suppositional interpretation, a conditional is acceptable when its consequent is credible enough given its antecedent.
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents

    False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents

    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
  • Logical Vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: a Comparative Study

    Logical Vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: a Comparative Study

    ITAT 2016 Proceedings, CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol. 1649, pp. 68–73 http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1649, Series ISSN 1613-0073, c 2016 K. Prikrylová,ˇ V. Kubon,ˇ K. Veselovská Logical vs. Natural Language Conjunctions in Czech: A Comparative Study Katrin Prikrylová,ˇ Vladislav Kubon,ˇ and Katerinaˇ Veselovská Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Czech Republic {prikrylova,vk,veselovska}@ufal.mff.cuni.cz Abstract: This paper studies the relationship between con- ceptions and irregularities which do not abide the rules as junctions in a natural language (Czech) and their logical strictly as it is the case in logic. counterparts. It shows that the process of transformation Primarily due to this difference, the transformation of of a natural language expression into its logical representa- natural language sentences into their logical representation tion is not straightforward. The paper concentrates on the constitutes a complex issue. As we are going to show in most frequently used logical conjunctions, and , and it the subsequent sections, there are no simple rules which analyzes the natural language phenomena which∧ influence∨ would allow automation of the process – the majority of their transformation into logical conjunction and disjunc- problematic cases requires an individual approach. tion. The phenomena discussed in the paper are temporal In the following text we are going to restrict our ob- sequence, expressions describing mutual relationship and servations to the two most frequently used conjunctions, the consequences of using plural. namely a (and) and nebo (or). 1 Introduction and motivation 2 Sentences containing the conjunction a (and) The endeavor to express natural language sentences in the form of logical expressions is probably as old as logic it- The initial assumption about complex sentences contain- self.
  • Introduction to Deductive Logic

    Introduction to Deductive Logic

    Introduction to Deductive Logic Part I: Logic & Language There is no royal road to logic, and really valuable ideas can only be had at the price of close attention. Charles Saunders Peirce INTRODUCTION TO DEDUCTIVE LOGIC PART I: LOGIC AND LANGUAGE I. INTRODUCTION What is Logic? . 4 What is an argument? . 5 Three Criteria for Evaluating Arguments . 6 II. ARGUMENT ANALYSIS – PART 1 Preliminary Issues . 9 Statements and Truth Value Premises and Conclusions . 9 Statements vs Sentences 10 Simple vs Compound Statements 12 Recognizing premises and conclusions . 13 Indicator Language. 15 TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS Inductive Reasoning/Argument . 18 Deductive Reasoning/Argument . 19 III. ANALYSIS – PART II FORMALIZING ARGUMENT Preliminary Issue: Formal vs. Informal Argument . 24 Simple and Compound Statements . 25 Types of Compound Statements . 26 Formation Rules for Sentential . 26 DEFINING LOGICAL OPERATORS . 29 Negation . 29 Conjunction . 30 Disjunction . 31 Conditional/ Material Implication . 32 Bi-conditional . 33 APPLICATION: TRANSLATING USING LOGICAL OPERATORS . 35 TRUTH TABLE RULES/SUMMARY OF LOGICAL OPERATORS . 38 TRUTH TABLE APPLICATIONS . 39 Application I: Substitute and Calculate Method . 39 Application II: Calculating with Unknown Values . 41 Application III: Full Truth Table Method . 42 A Short Cut Technique for statements. 44 Truth Table Test for Logical Equivalence . 45 Application IV: Using Truth Tables to Facilitate Reasoning . 47 THE NEED FOR PREDICATE . 50 Using Predicate to Represent Categorical Statements . 52 Preliminary Issues– Grammar . 53 Formation Rules for Predicate . 55 Expressing Quantity . 56 APPLICATION: Symbolizing Categorical Statements using Predicate . 56 Negating Standard Form Categorical Statements. 57 Summary Chart for Standard Form Categorical Statements . 59 Extending Predicate . 61 A Universe of Discourse .
  • Hardware Abstract the Logic Gates References Results Transistors Through the Years Acknowledgements

    Hardware Abstract the Logic Gates References Results Transistors Through the Years Acknowledgements

    The Practical Applications of Logic Gates in Computer Science Courses Presenters: Arash Mahmoudian, Ashley Moser Sponsored by Prof. Heda Samimi ABSTRACT THE LOGIC GATES Logic gates are binary operators used to simulate electronic gates for design of circuits virtually before building them with-real components. These gates are used as an instrumental foundation for digital computers; They help the user control a computer or similar device by controlling the decision making for the hardware. A gate takes in OR GATE AND GATE NOT GATE an input, then it produces an algorithm as to how The OR gate is a logic gate with at least two An AND gate is a consists of at least two A NOT gate, also known as an inverter, has to handle the output. This process prevents the inputs and only one output that performs what inputs and one output that performs what is just a single input with rather simple behavior. user from having to include a microprocessor for is known as logical disjunction, meaning that known as logical conjunction, meaning that A NOT gate performs what is known as logical negation, which means that if its input is true, decision this making. Six of the logic gates used the output of this gate is true when any of its the output of this gate is false if one or more of inputs are true. If all the inputs are false, the an AND gate's inputs are false. Otherwise, if then the output will be false. Likewise, are: the OR gate, AND gate, NOT gate, XOR gate, output of the gate will also be false.
  • Set Notation and Concepts

    Set Notation and Concepts

    Appendix Set Notation and Concepts “In mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them.” John von Neumann (1903–1957) This appendix is primarily a brief run-through of basic concepts from set theory, but it also in Sect. A.4 mentions set equations, which are not always covered when introducing set theory. A.1 Basic Concepts and Notation A set is a collection of items. You can write a set by listing its elements (the items it contains) inside curly braces. For example, the set that contains the numbers 1, 2 and 3 can be written as {1, 2, 3}. The order of elements do not matter in a set, so the same set can be written as {2, 1, 3}, {2, 3, 1} or using any permutation of the elements. The number of occurrences also does not matter, so we could also write the set as {2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1} or in an infinity of other ways. All of these describe the same set. We will normally write sets without repetition, but the fact that repetitions do not matter is important to understand the operations on sets. We will typically use uppercase letters to denote sets and lowercase letters to denote elements in a set, so we could write M ={2, 1, 3} and x = 2 as an element of M. The empty set can be written either as an empty list of elements ({})orusing the special symbol ∅. The latter is more common in mathematical texts. A.1.1 Operations and Predicates We will often need to check if an element belongs to a set or select an element from a set.
  • An Introduction to Formal Methods for Philosophy Students

    An Introduction to Formal Methods for Philosophy Students

    An Introduction to Formal Methods for Philosophy Students Thomas Forster February 20, 2021 2 Contents 1 Introduction 13 1.1 What is Logic? . 13 1.1.1 Exercises for the first week: “Sheet 0” . 13 2 Introduction to Logic 17 2.1 Statements, Commands, Questions, Performatives . 18 2.1.1 Truth-functional connectives . 20 2.1.2 Truth Tables . 21 2.2 The Language of Propositional Logic . 23 2.2.1 Truth-tables for compound expressions . 24 2.2.2 Logical equivalence . 26 2.2.3 Non truth functional connectives . 27 2.3 Intension and Extension . 28 2.3.1 If–then . 31 2.3.2 Logical Form and Valid Argument . 33 2.3.3 The Type-Token Distinction . 33 2.3.4 Copies . 35 2.4 Tautology and Validity . 36 2.4.1 Valid Argument . 36 2.4.2 V and W versus ^ and _ .................... 40 2.4.3 Conjunctive and Disjunctive Normal Form . 41 2.5 Further Useful Logical Gadgetry . 46 2.5.1 The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction . 46 2.5.2 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions . 47 2.5.3 The Use-Mention Distinction . 48 2.5.4 Language-metalanguage distinction . 51 2.5.5 Semantic Optimisation and the Principle of Charity . 52 2.5.6 Inferring A-or-B from A . 54 2.5.7 Fault-tolerant pattern-matching . 54 2.5.8 Overinterpretation . 54 2.5.9 Affirming the consequent . 55 3 4 CONTENTS 3 Proof Systems for Propositional Logic 57 3.1 Arguments by LEGO . 57 3.2 The Rules of Natural Deduction . 57 3.2.1 Worries about reductio and hypothetical reasoning .