Symbolic Logic : Predicate Logic

The sentence below is a theorem of predicate logic. Show that it is by deriving it from the null set of premises. If any "individual" in the domain has a property, then every individual has it. I need help explaining this and with the derivation. (EX)(FX --->(Y)FY)

Symbolic Logic : Symbolic Notation

Determine whether or not the argument below is valid. Transcribe it into symbolic notation and if it is valid, provide a derivation of the conclusion from the premises using only primitive rules of inference. The area of a triangle is the area of a three sided figure. Since triangles are three sided.

Symbolic Logic Problem

Use the method of truth table expansion to determine whether or not the sentence below is a theorem of quantified logic. The # indicates a biconditional, usually indicated by a double arrow. (EX)(Y)FXY#(Y)(EX)FXY

Real Analysis :Problem Prove a function is integrable over [a,b]

Let f:[a,b] mapped to the Reals be a function that is integrable over [a,b], and let g:[a,b] mapped to the Reals be a function that agrees with f except at two points. Prove g is integrable over [a,b].

Budget Pie Graph: How to Handle a Deficit

We have to make a pie graph of a budget. The problem is the expenditure exceed the income. This is what the teacher wanted. My problem is how do you compose a pie graph when instead of 100% the expenditures are 131% OF THE INCOME. I know how to compute the angles and everything but thereare only 360 degrees in the circle. We hav ...continues

Symbolic Logic Problem : Sentence to Expression

Transcribe the English argument below into an appropriate logical language adequate to determine it to be valid. Also, please provide a derivation of the conclusion from the premises within the same logical system (by which you transcribed it). *this seems to be predicate logic and probably requires universal and existential q ...continues

Symbolic Logic Problem : Proof

Construct a formal proof which shows that the sentence below is a theorem of predicate logic. *the E's are existential quantifiers (usually designated by backwards E's). the & are "and". Do not use quantifier negation rules. [(x)(~Rx or Nx)& ~(Ex)Nx or (Ey)(z)Szy] ->(~(Ex)Rx or (z)(Ey)Szy

Proof of Inequality by Mathematical Induction

Prove that (n + 1)!>2^(n+3) for n>=3 Hint: try using mathematical induction

Real Analysis : Proof

I need a proof for "If f on [a,b] is continuous & 0 is not a member f([a,b]) then f is bounded away from 0."

Accounting: Prepare Annual Adjusting Entries

A review of the ledger of Greenberg Company at December 31, 2002, produces the following data pertaining to the preparation of annual adjusting entries. 1. Salaries Payable $0. There are eight salaried employees. Salaries are paid every Friday for the current week. Five employees receive a salary of $750 each per week, and ...continues