Timeline for Is this well-formed formula for predicate logic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2018 at 8:26 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Also assuming $U$ as $\lor$ (disjunction), (iii) is not: if $P$ is a predicate symbol, then $P(t)$ is a formula and not a term; thus $G(P(t) \lor P(t))$ is wrong, because the predicate $G$ needs a term in its argument-place and not a formula. | |
| Aug 4, 2018 at 7:50 | history | edited | Taroccoesbrocco | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 262 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Aug 3, 2018 at 23:22 | vote | accept | Philip D'Souza | ||
| Aug 3, 2018 at 22:53 | comment | added | Doug Spoonwood | If a string is well-formed it can get demonstrated by listing out each step in the construction of the formula with citations to the formation rules on the side. If it's not a well-formed formula, we can usually cite a violation of the formation rules. | |
| Aug 3, 2018 at 22:33 | answer | added | blub | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 3, 2018 at 21:27 | history | asked | Philip D'Souza | CC BY-SA 4.0 |