/sci/ - Science & Math

Joe does not meet the first conditional, but he meets the second, and the conclusion follows. And "addicts exist" has no connection to the argument.

>>2548025
thats not predicate logic.....

So you want to translate this into logic?

>>2548012

>implying you have to be in a casino to play poker

>>2548012
translating this into predicate logic isn't that hard, might take me few minutes to post if no one beats me to it.

>>2548096
wrong, mister. Your logic is flawed.

/sci/ why have you forsaken me! Maybe there is someone out there that can do this and deliver.

bump
anyone that can translate this into predicate logic?

the word addict is clearly used too loosely these days

>Everyone that has played poker more than 2 times can become an addict.
>One that never gambles in a casino can't become an addict.

These can lead to a contradiction. Your system is inconsistent.

>>2548438
playing poker twice is necessary but not sufficient. You have just failed your LSAT

>>2548438
No it doesn't.
Everyone who plays more than twice CAN become an addict.
The people who play twice but aren't addicts because they've never played in a Casino just exist as a subset of the people who play twice and aren't addicts.

I think...

>>2548012
Doesn't say "Everyone that has played more than 2 times DOES become an addict"

Playing twice is just a necessary qualifier.

The set of people who play poker twice has two subsets of addicts and non-addicts. Addicts intersect with the set of people who gamble in casinos.
Joe is in the set Played Twice U Not in Casino

something like that I'm guessing.

1) All dogs are black
2) Billy is a dog
3) The moon is a satellite
4) Therefore, Billy is black

If A, then some B
If not C, then not B
J = A and not C, therefore J = not B.

>Everyone that has played poker more than 2 times can become an addict.
>more than 2 times
>more than 2
Joe has never gambled in a casino but he has played poker twice.
>played poker twice.
>twice

Is this important?

>>2548514
Oh, lol, this is a good point.
I can't believe I glanced over it.

I haven't done a great deal of logic theory, but as a statistician I'd probably Venn Diagram this :/

>>2548472
They're in a state of being where they both can (because they have gambled twice) and cannot (because they have not gambled in a casino) become an addict. This is impossible.

>>2548514
Oops

>Joe has never gambled in a casino but he has played poker twice. Therefore Joe is not an addict.

He's played poker twice, but not more than twice. Both reasons are why he cannot be an addict.

>>2548571
Joe's having played poker twice has no bearing on his inability to become an addict. The first statement would have to read "Only everyone that has played...," but it does not.

Oh, I see what you're saying.
This is a good point, too.

It's like:
All shapes with two dots can be squares.
A shape without a star can't be a square.
Squares exist.
A shape has two dots but no star is not a square.

The fallacy is that the shape has two dots, but, because it does not have a star, it can't be a square. This contradicts the first statement.

>>2548580
Meant to cite
>>2548528

...but none of this matters because of >>2548514

this thread has shown me that sci is filled with fucking idiots

Let:
Joe has played poker more than 2 times = P
Joe become an addict = A
Joe has gambled in a casino = C

Given:
P -> A
~C -> ~A
~P ^ ~C

Proof:
~P ^ ~C (Given)
~C (Conjunctive inference)
~C -> ~A (Given)
~A (Modus Ponens)

>>2548635
Joe can become an addict*

If Joe can become an addict, it doesn't mean he IS an addict, but since it turns out he cannot, he isn't, so my proof is okay.

>>2548635
Great success

>>2548438
Clearly, one must conclude that everybody who plays poker twice gambles in a casino.

>>2548594

>>2548514 Has nothing to do with whether or not the logic can lead to contradictory cases.

You all are missing two key points:
>Everyone that has played poker more than 2 times can become an addict.
>more than 2 times
>oe has never gambled in a casino but he has played poker twice
>played poker twice
and
>One that never gambles in a casino can't become an addict
>never gambles
>Joe has never gambled in a casino but he has played poker twice
>has never gambled
One cannot make any conclusions from the data set.

>>2548661
In a casino. Clearly, he gambled OUTSIDE a casino.

>>2548652
I meant more than twice. Damn, mistakes everywhere today.

>>2548661
No, one can conclude Joe cannot be an addict. Because people who have not gambled in casinos cannot be addicts, and Joe is a person who has not gambled in a casino. You don't need to include every predicate to be able to derive information, or this sentence would be false.

Does this represent the system in question correctly?

>>2548713
I prefer symbolic logic, but yes.

>>2548722
I'm not familiar with symbol logic but it ought to be more compact than a Venn diagram. What would the symbolic representation of this system be?

>>2548713
No. All people who have played poker more than 2 times are potential addicts. This implies that all people who have played poker more than 2 times have played in a casino, i.e. that potential addicts are a subset of people who have gambled in casinos who have also played poker more than 2 times.

>>2548748
It's that first-order logic thing posted above. My school called it symbolic logic. Sorry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_logic

>>2548751
>One that never gambles in a casino can't become an addict.
>can't become an addict
>can't

Playing poker more than twice is necessary but not sufficient. That's why (POTENTIAL addicts) is crossed out in that part of the diagram.

A person who played poker more than twice CAN become an addict IF he/she gambles in a casino.

>>2548678
>In a casino. Clearly, he gambled OUTSIDE a casino.
Not the point, the point is that the tense is different. He could gamble tomorrow in a casino, and thus lose his inability to become an addict.

>>2548797
No, that is not implied, you fucking idiot. It says "Everyone who has played poker more than 2 times can become an addict." So even people who have played poker more than 2 times but never gambled in a casino can become an addict. This means, when speaking in English, that they are potential addicts.

Moreover, you fucking moron, it's not necessary. None of the statements implies that ONLY people who have played poker more than twice can become addicts.

>>2548805
Exactly.

>>2548818
>One that never gambles in a casino can't become an addict.
I'm just stating the problem as it is defined for us.

Logic teacher here. In predicate logic, "can become an addict" is one predicate, and "is an addict" is another predicate. They have nothing to do with each other in predicate logic. That is a weakness of predicate logic which is why there is modal logic. But you need two different atomic predicate letters for these two predicates.

So the problem is not well-phrased: I suppose you have to interpret "can't become an addict" as "is not an addict."