This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Negation Not every A is B. or Some A are not B. or Not all of A is B.or There exists an A which is not B Every, all All UPOU students are Not every UPOU responsible. student is responsible. Some UPOU students are not responsible. Not all UPOU students are responsible. There is a UPOU student who is not responsible. In general, to negate All A are B the negation of all is some A followed by not B. To negate Some A are B, the negation of some is every A followed by not B. Some Some A are B. Every A is not B Some Some entertainers sing Every entertainer does well. not sing well. Ibig sabihin ang pag-negate ng “All are …” o “Lahat ay …” ay “Ilan ay hindi …” o “Some are not …” o “Hindi lahat ay…” o “Not all are…” o “May d bababa sa isa na hindi …” o “There exists at least one who is not …”. Halimbawa: All are brave. Some are not brave. Not all are brave. There exists at least one who is not brave. May dimples ang lahat. Walang dimples ang ilan. Ang ilan ay walang dimples. Hindi lahat ang may dimples. D bababa sa isa ang bilang ng walang dimples. All are … Some are not … Lahat ay … Ang ilan ay hindi … Ganito naman ang negasyon ng “Some” o “Ilan” Some are … All are not … Every one is not … None is … Ilan ay … Lahat ay hindi …

Halimbawa: Some UPOU students are entertainers.

Bawat isa ay hindi …

May bisyo ang ilan sa mga atleta.

Gets niyo?

All UPOU students are not entertainers. Every UPOU student is not an entertainer. No UPOU student is an entertainer. None in the UPOU studentry is an entertainer. Lahat ng atleta ay walang bisyo. O walang bisyo ang lahat ng atleta. Bawat atleta ay walang bisyo. O Walang bisyo ang bawat atleta. Walang atleta ang may bisyo. Wala sa mga atleta ang may bisyo.

B) Punta naman tayo sa mga ARGUMENTS o ARGUMENTO. Define an argument: An argument consists of a set of premises all assumed to be true and a conclusion. What is a valid argument? If the premises force the conclusion to be true then the argument is valid. What is an invalid argument? If the premises cannot force the statement to be true then the argument is Not Valid. C) Modeling or representing a statement by Venn Diagrams. Magtataka kayo cguro kung paano natin ire-present ang isang simple statement by venn diagram. Ganito yon: 1) Bawat statement ay kailangan ire-present ng 2 venn diagrams o bilog, isa para sa subject, isa para sa predicate. Ang isang circle ay nagrere-present ng All of the subject; ang pangalawa naman ay nagrere-present ng All of the predicate. Ang 2 venn diagrams na ito (usually circles) ay maaring intersecting, disjoint o subset ang isa nung isa depende sa statement.

Halimbawa: Statement All birds sing beautifully

Set representation B = Set of all birds F = Set of all who sing beautifully

Venn Diagram B F

Statement Some birds sing beautifully.

Set representation B = Set of all birds F = Set of all who sing beautifully

Venn Diagram B F

No bird sings beautifully.

B = Set of all birds F = Set of all who sing beautifully

B F

2) Ang isang elemento ay nirere-present ng point na may label din. • P parrot A parrot. Examples of an argument. Test the validity of the following arguments using venn diagrams: Argument Set representation Venn Diagram Conclusion 1) All birds sing B = Set of all birds Valid because beautifully. F = Set of all who sing B the premises • P parrot A parrot is a bird. beautifully. force the • P parrot Therefore a parrot parrot to be sings beautifully. F included in the set of all who sing beautifully.

Argument 2) Some birds sing beautifully. A parrot is a bird. Therefore a parrot sings beautifully.

Set representation B = Set of all birds F = Set of all who sing beautifully. • P parrot

Venn Diagram B

• P parrot

Conclusion Not Valid because the premises do not require that P ay nasa sakop lamang ng F. Ang masasabi lamang ng premises ay basta nasa sakop ang P ng B. Sa gayon, Basta nasa loob ng B, maari itong nasa labas ng F, kaya hindi valid. Kahit nga ba maaring nasa loob ng F ang • P, the fact na dalawa ang possibleng sagot na magkasalungat, HINDI VALID ang kongklusyon.

• P parrot

F

D) Mga properties o kaangkinan ng relasyon: Ipagpalagay na ang relasyon ng 2 elemento ng isang mathematical system ay “R”. Ang mga properties ng “R” ay maaring: 1) Reflexive. Let a ∈ S, R a relation a S is said to be REFLEXIVE if and only if a R a. For example if R is equality, since a = a then R is reflexive. And if R is “LOVES”, a R a because everybody should love himself for how can one love others if he does not love himself? 2) Symmetric. Let a, b ∈ S, R a relation in S is said to be SYMMETRIC if and only if a R b then b R a. Masasabi natin na symmetric ang isang relasyon kung malalagyan natin ng panlaping MAG. Halimbawa, R = LOVES, dapat lang: a R b ⇔ b R a. MAGMAHALAN, hindi lang MAHAL NI. 3) Transitive. Let a, b, c ∈ S, R a relation in S is said to be TRANSITIVE if and only if a R b and if b R c then a R c. Samakatuwid, ang R ay transitive kung maaring magkarelasyon ang a at c dahil sa kapwa relasyon nila sa b. Halimbawa R = PINSAN. Magpinsan si a at b; Magpinsan si b at c pero hindi natin masasabi na Magpinsan sina a at c. Pero paano kung gaya ng nasa FMA1, R = MAGKAPATID? Denifine natin ang magkapatid basta lang mayroon silang common na magulang gaya nina Eric Cuison at Vandolph.

- Rosen More Examples
- 06_1ch5
- Some Notes on Logic
- What is an Academic Assignment 2
- What Do Bold Face Questions Test
- Lglmth Wk7 PDF
- B2B Feb 14
- Effective & Critical Reading by Dr.budhi
- MYP Command Terms
- McDowell Disjuntivism Transcendental Argument1
- Group Discussion
- Assignment 1a Marking Criteria
- Fallacies
- Fallacies
- The Structure and the Logic of Proof in Trials
- Policy
- Being critical.pdf
- Plotinus' Reply to the Arguments of Parmenides 130a-131d
- Hollabaugh Dissertation
- GMAT Full Knotes[1]
- Ielts General Training Writing Task 2
- GRE AWA Argument
- Coming to Our Senses
- Research Gateway Section7 Discussion of Findings
- Oliphint, the Consistency of Van Tils Methodology
- Academic Guide - Hammering the Prose
- Santo Tomás de Aquino - Comentario a De Generación y Corrupción de Aristóteles
- Lampert, 2006 - Wittgenstein’s “Notorious Paragraph” About the Gödel Theorem
- Scarlet Letter
- Automating G¨odel’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd