Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 07:02 pm
Translating is probably one of the most interesting parts of the introductory phase of logic. This will thread will show you how to convert everyday sentences into logical symbolization so that you can calculate it later in proofs.

It is a step by step process and gradually incorporates many sentences and connectives, so if you get lost in one phase of the explanation, go back to the beginning and recap to see if you missed out on any information.

How to symbolize a single sentence-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take this simple sentence; "John is a funny guy"

1.It is up to you to pick a letter to symbolize this sentence, but it is easiest to go for the most obvious subject, which is John.

So we can symbolize "John is a funny guy" as the letter "J" which symbolizes the entire sentence.

How to symbolize a compound sentence----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now take the compound sentence; "John is a funny guy and Mary is a funny girl."

1.First, isolate the two sentences you see in the compound sentence; "John is a funny guy and Mary is a funny girl."
2.Now take what we know about connectives from symposium 3 and translate the connective "and" into the connective "&."
3.Now we can translate the compound sentence into; J & M.

How to symbolize a sentence with more than one connective.-----------------------------------------------

Example 1.

Take this sentence; "John is funny and Mary is funny or Alan will be there."

1.First, isolate the simple sentences; "John is funny and Mary is funny or Alan will be there."
2.Now translate the connectives; and (&), or (v).
3.Now from left to right translate; J & M v A

But this is where it can become difficult. You have to group the symbols in order to simplify. The grouping work the same way they do in math, and this is why I suspect people are afraid of formal logic, because it looks like math, But don't think of it in that sense. Group the way you would in math; (z),[y ( Z) ], {x [ y ( z)] } judging on the configuration of the sentence.

4.
In this case the sentence can be translated as either (J & M) v A or J & (M v A)

You can do it either way.

Example 2.

Take the sentence; "Either John walks and Mary walks, or Ann walks and Barry walks."

1.First isolate the compound sentences; "Either John walks and Mary walks, or Ann walks and Barry walks."
2.Break down the isolated compound sentences into simple sentence and their connective; J & M, A & B.
4.
So the sentence translates as; ( J & M ) v ( A & B)

How to symbolize a single sentence with a Negation--------------------------------------------------------------------

But what if we say; "It is not the case that John is a funny guy."

1.If you remember the characteristics of a negation from Symposium 3, this sentence incorporates a negation. Now to symbolize this sentence, we first look at the whole sentence and isolate the main point, which is "John is a funny guy." Now this sentence is translated as "J" BUT!!!!! The sentence is negated when we incorporate the rest of the sentence, " When you see the phrase " you can substitute it with a negation symbol, (~).

So we can symbolize "It is not the case that John is a funny guy" as ~A.

How to symbolize a compound sentence with a negation-------------------------------------------------------------

Negations are annoying and are very difficult, so don't be annoyed if you cannot get it right off the bat. Usually, arguments that use proper English never pose a statement this way, but people who do not use proper English make state something thusly.

Take this sentence; "It is not the case that John is funny and Mary is funny."

1.First way, isolate the simple sentences; "It is not the case that John is funny and Mary is funny."
2.Translate with the main connective; J & MIt is not the case that John is funny, but Mary is funny"
Translating the sentence again this way makes it easier for you to translate.
4.Isolate the simple sentences; "It is not the case that John is funny, but Mary is funny"
5.Isolate the connective; but.
Here's the thing, in so many words, "but" is equivocal with "and." Just remember that.
6.Translate as; J & M
7.Incorporate the negation, " as ~.
8.Translate the whole sentence as; ~J & M.

UP UNTIL NOW!!!!!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, you are aware of simple, compound, multiple connective, and negation sentences.

Now for translating when it comes to conjunctions, disjunctions, conditional, and bi-conditionals

Translating connectives---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conjunctions

Take this sentence for example; "John is funny and Mary is funny."

1.Identify the simple sentences; "John is funny and Mary is funny."
2.Identify the connective; "John is funny and Mary is funny."
3.Translate; A & B

Disjunctions


Take this sentence for example; "Either John is funny or Mary is funny."

1.Identify the simple sentences; "Either John is funny or Mary is funny."
2.Identify the connective; "EitherJohn is funny or Mary is funny."
3.Translate; A v B

Conditional


Take this sentence for example; "If John is funny then Mary is funny."

1.Identify the simple sentences; "If John is funny then Mary is funny."
2.Identify the connective; "If John is funny then Mary is funny."
3.Translate; A --> B

Bi-Conditional


Take this sentence for example; "John is funny if and only if Mary is funny."

1.Identify the simple sentences;" John is funny if and only if Mary is funny."
2.Identify the connective; "John is funny if and only ifMary is funny."
3.Translate; A <-->B

REACP!!!!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suffice to say, just keep the foremost translation method in mind;

1.Read the sentence (simple, compound, etc.)
2.If a simple sentence, simply translate as a single letter.
3.If compound sentence, identify the individual sentences in the compound sentence.
4.Identify the connective, or connectives in the compound sentence.
5.Translate the entire sentence.
6.Group according to the syntactical structure of the argument.

PRACTICE!!
!------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.The Songbirds will sing and the Owls will hoot, or the Eagles will scream.
2.Either Ted will jog and Bill will jog, or Alan will jog.
3.Either John or Mary will jog, or either Bill or Dennis will jog.
4.Alexia will run and Barry will run, and Charles will run.
5.John will play a tune and either Alan will play or Mary will play.
6.John and Mary both won't run.

Answer key (highlight the empty area for the answers)

1.(S & O) v E
2.(T & B) v A
3.(J v M) v (B v D)
4.(A & B) & C
5.J & (A v M)
6.~ (J & M)


I'm sure this can be said better, so I'll be updating this often. There is ALOT more to say on translating, but explaining every little instance and idiosyncrasy may be hard to follow.

PLEASE ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE BECAUSE I KNOW I WAS NOT VERY CLEAR ON MUCH OF THIS.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 01:55 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon,

May I ask for answers in a different notation? I think this will prove to be very confusing. Perhaps the anwers will be in plain sight when using word and sticking it up there, but at least your explanations will be consistent.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 09:53 am
@Arjen,
Of course! This is a more visual version of the answer key.


http://i31.tinypic.com/20tnl1d.jpg
 
Arjen
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 02:24 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
You crack me up. Smile
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 05:25 pm
@Arjen,
Thanks, I guess??? Is there some other way you wanted the answers?

Also, I'm sensing some hostility?
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 01:30 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Thanks, I guess??? Is there some other way you wanted the answers?

I was just thinking of replacing the whited answers with formal logic notations is all. You went the other way. I guess it doesn't relly matter.

Quote:

Also, I'm sensing some hostility?

Not at all. It just made me laugh. It seemed more logical to me to replace the whited answers is all.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 09:03 am
@Arjen,
Arjen... those are formal logic notations. There are many ways to symbolize a connective, the ones I'm using is the Pospesal method because it is easier to type, other wise I would be using horseshoe, turnstyle, etc. There are many other ways.

As to your other comment... some would call that being a di... ahem, being a disingenuous comment.
 
de budding
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 12:12 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Ok I got the hang of it now Smile, I made up a couple of random scentences of my own and put them in truth tables but I am not sure what is the 'answer'... When all the connectives are true? when the main connective is true? etc.

e.g. if the cat is in at night then I will not be able to sleep if he meows.

If the cat is in at night (c) then [-->] I will not be able to sleep (~s) if [v] he meows (m)

C --> (~S v M) or (C --> ~S) v M (i'm not sure which:o).

right?

if so can you make a truth table for me and highlght what I should look at for the 'solution'... pleeease Very Happy,
Dan.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 02:28 pm
@de budding,
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 01:53 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Arjen... those are formal logic notations. There are many ways to symbolize a connective, the ones I'm using is the Pospesal method because it is easier to type, other wise I would be using horseshoe, turnstyle, etc. There are many other ways.

As to your other comment... some would call that being a di... ahem, being a disingenuous comment.

I think I now know what hostility you sensed.

Asking for consistency is disengenial, but not understanding the basics andthe limits of the system is perfectly normal? I beg to differ.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 06:38 am
@Arjen,
Arjen,

I am very glad you now know what hostility I sensed.

But besides this, why is this the only conversation that has nothing constructive to lend to the topic?
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 10:04 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
Arjen,

I am very glad you now know what hostility I sensed.

But besides this, why is this the only conversation that has nothing constructive to lend to the topic?

Ah, more hostility. Perhaps it is not constructive because you do not allow it to be?
 
de budding
 
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2008 11:39 am
@Arjen,
[QUOTE]
don't argue because I'm not going to oblige you
[/QUOTE] -VideCorSpoon

Ha ha ha, Very Happy

Dan.

 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 08:07 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Ok you know the statement "The songbirds will sing and the Owls will hoot, or the Eagles will scream".


You translate it to this. (S & O) v E

However, what's to say it can't be S & (O v E)? Can we establish a rule for determining the placement of brackets in comparison to the english?

Even though I somehow intuitively grasped the right answer I wonder why I did so, naturally.

What if the comma was moved to precede the 'and'. Is that the determinate of placing the brackets, or does the subjects affected by and take priority to the subject affected by or, and the brackets are placed for highest priority.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2008 08:24 pm
@Holiday20310401,
 
facepuncher
 
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 02:28 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
if the comma is the determinate in the statement, how would something like this be symbolised?

it's cold, but it's not windy or foggy

i was thinking (C ~(W v F)). am i close at all? is it appropriate to have a basic proposition followed by a negated compound?

C: it's cold W: it's windy F: it's foggy
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 05:11 pm
@facepuncher,
Actually yes for the most part. You could say "it's cold, but it's not windy or foggy" or " It is neither windy or foggy, but it is cold." Same thing, just different structure.

The translation (C ~(W v F)) is alright except for a few things. First, You need to have proper parenthetical devices (symposia 5, post 1,3) first. So change the outer parenthesis to brackets.

[C ~(W v F)]

Then remember the rule for the well formed formula (symposia 5, post 1). A well formed formula cannot have a floating variable, namely C.

With that in mind, you need to add a sentence operator (i.e. &, v, -->, <-->). The word "but" functions in many respects like a conditional. So basically when you see the word "but," think "if,then." So all you need to do is add the conjunction symbol between the C and the ~(W v F). So it becomes;

[C --> ~(W v F)]

But you can definitely have a single variable followed by a negated compound sentence. Its all a matter of translation.
 
facepuncher
 
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 08:37 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 09:17 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:

With that in mind, you need to add a sentence operator (i.e. &, v, -->, <-->). The word "but" functions in many respects like a conditional. So basically when you see the word "but," think "if,then." So all you need to do is add the conjunction symbol between the C and the ~(W v F). So it becomes;


Nice thread, but just had to comment on this. "But" usually would be translated into an AND operator, not a conditional. Now maybe if it were worded something like "A but for B", it could be translated differently, though it seems that standard practice is usually to take AND from "but".

Now that you've got this posted we just need a follow-up on using truth tables to check validity of arguments. That would come in useful around here. :cool:


facepuncher wrote:


That's just a very convoluted, redundant sentence. You might as well delete everything after the first comma, (and the "if" at the beginning, is that a typo?) and you get the same statement, where your translation is correct (if you remove the one parenthetical in front of the H, and if that ^ symbol is an AND).
 
facepuncher
 
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 09:24 pm
@Pangloss,
pangloss sire can you halp with my above question? Smile

I KNOW YOU HAVE THE BRAIN POWER OF A GREAT LOGICIAN

yeah i can see now that it is quite redundant, but can the second half still be symbolized simply for the sake of it, not for any argumentative purposes?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 01:32:40