Mixing
How to convert an English sentence that contains “can't take more than 2†into predicate calculus sentence? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The example is :
A student can’t take more than 2 courses with the same instructor
logic artificial-intelligence
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
closed as off-topic by amWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, José Carlos Santos Jul 28 at 22:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." РamWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, Jos̩ Carlos Santos
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The example is :
A student can’t take more than 2 courses with the same instructor
logic artificial-intelligence
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
closed as off-topic by amWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, José Carlos Santos Jul 28 at 22:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." РamWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, Jos̩ Carlos Santos
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
1
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The example is :
A student can’t take more than 2 courses with the same instructor
logic artificial-intelligence
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
The example is :
A student can’t take more than 2 courses with the same instructor
logic artificial-intelligence
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
asked Jul 28 at 14:23
Hamudy Jibbe
71
71
closed as off-topic by amWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, José Carlos Santos Jul 28 at 22:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." РamWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, Jos̩ Carlos Santos
closed as off-topic by amWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, José Carlos Santos Jul 28 at 22:22
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." РamWhy, Patrick Stevens, Holo, Xander Henderson, Jos̩ Carlos Santos
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
1
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
1
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
1
1
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Hint: To say "there can't be more than 2 things" it is sufficient to say "there are not 3 distinct things".
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Hint: To say "there can't be more than 2 things" it is sufficient to say "there are not 3 distinct things".
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Hint: To say "there can't be more than 2 things" it is sufficient to say "there are not 3 distinct things".
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Hint: To say "there can't be more than 2 things" it is sufficient to say "there are not 3 distinct things".
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
Hint: To say "there can't be more than 2 things" it is sufficient to say "there are not 3 distinct things".
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
answered Jul 28 at 14:27
Henning Makholm
225k16290516
225k16290516
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
add a comment |Â
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor Is it correct?
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:34
add a comment |Â
The word can't has a somewhat inexact meaning until you decide exactly what it means. "You can't do that!" "Really? It seems to me that I am doing it."
– David K
Jul 28 at 14:29
1
What have you translated so far?
– amWhy
Jul 28 at 14:31
amWhy ∀c∃x∃y∃z∃q(takes(x,y,q)^takes(x,z,q) → ¬takes(x,c,q)) Where c,y,z are courses ; x is student ; q is instructor
– Hamudy Jibbe
Jul 28 at 14:37
If $C$ is the set of courses, $I$ the instructors, and $fsubset Ctimes I$ the relation that assigns instructors to courses, then you can say $$negleft[ exists x,y,zin C, exists ain I:((neg(x= y))wedge (neg(x= y))wedge(neg(y= z))wedge((x,a)in f)wedge((y,a)in f)wedge((z,a)in f))right]$$
– user578878
Jul 28 at 14:40
Everybody seems to be translating, "No student takes more than $2$ courses from any instructor," which is not what the sentence says. I would say that the sentence means something like, "It is a rule of the college that no student may take courses from any instructor." It seems quite possible that some student is taking $3$ courses from a single instructor, in violation of the rules. Perhaps I'm saying the same thing David K says in his comment.
– saulspatz
Jul 28 at 15:16