3. Add all the intermediate assertions and so produce the proof tableau for the following state- ments. If a statement is not valid then include in your respective tableau a pre-condition that is just strong enough to make the statement valid. (a) ASSERT (true) m = 1; n = 1%; n = a-b; ASSERT (m*n > 0) (b) ASSERT (x == y*(y+1)) y = y + 1; x = x + 2*y; ASSERT (x == = y*(y+1)) (c) ASSERT (false) y = 1; ASSERT (x+y<=0) 1 (d) ASSERT (true) if (x >= y) x = x + 1; else y = x - 1; z = y 1; ASSERT (z < y < x)

3. Add all the intermediate assertions and so produce the proof tableau for the following state- ments. If a statement is not valid then include in your respective tableau a pre-condition that is just strong enough to make the statement valid. (a) ASSERT (true) m = 1; n = 1%; n = a-b; ASSERT (mn > 0) (b) ASSERT (x == y(y+1)) y = y + 1; x = x + 2y; ASSERT (x == = y(y+1)) (c) ASSERT (false) y = 1; ASSERT (x+y<=0) 1 (d) ASSERT (true) if (x >= y) x = x + 1; else y = x - 1; z = y 1; ASSERT (z < y < x)

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Construct a formal proof of validity for the given argument. You must provide a list of steps with justifications 1.（M v N) -> p 2. not Q -> ((not p) v Q) 3. not Q so, not N
Write the following two statements in symbolic form and determine whether they are logically equivalent. Include a truth table and a few words explaining how the truth table supports your answer. If Sam is out of Schlitz, then Sam is out of beer. Sam is not out of beer or Sam is not out of Schlitz.
Part 1: Choose two of the proofs below and use one of the indirect proof techniques (reductio ad absurdum or conditional proof) presented in Chapter 8 to demonstrate the validity of the arguments. The proofs below may use any of the rules of inference or replacement rules given in Chapter 8. 1.(G • P) → K, E → Z, ~P → ~ Z, G → (E v L), therefore, (G • ~L) → K 2.(S v T) ↔ ~E, S → (F • ~G), A → W, T → ~W, therefore, (~E • A) → ~G 3.(S v T) v (U v W), therefore, (U v T) v (S v W) 4.~Q → (L → F), Q → ~A, F → B, L, therefore, ~A v B 5.~S → (F → L), F → (L → P), therefore, ~S → (F → P) Part 2: Below are basic arguments in English. Choose two arguments and translate those argument into the symbolism of predicate logic. You do not need to do a proof. Every fetus has an immortal soul. A thing has an immortal soul only if it has a right to life. Hence, every fetus has a right to life. (Fx = x is a fetus, Sx = x has an immortal soul, Rx = x has a right to life). Some wars are just. No war of…
Either prove the wff is a valid argument through predicate logic or give an interpretation in which it is false. (∀x)(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ∧ (∃x)Q(x) → (∃x)P(x)
Let p and q represent, respectively, the statements "Sharks have been spotted close to the shore" and "Swimming at the New Jersey Shore is permitted." Use an English phrase to express each of these compound assertions.
Exhibit the structure of the following statements by transforming them into a first-order formula,indicating the interpretation of predicates and the domain. For example the statement There isno greatest integer can be transformed into ¬∃x, ∀y, P(x, y) where P(x, y) is the predicate x ≥ y,the domain being the integers.Do not try to prove them (it may not be possible!).1. Every integer can be written as the sum of 2 squares.2. Every positive real number has a square root.3. The cosine function has zeroes.4. The cosine function has at least two distinct zeroes.5. There is a neutral element1for multiplication in real numbers.6. Every odd square can be written as the sum of three odd numbers.
Choose two of the arguments below and write a direct proof using the eight rules of inference introduced in section 8.1 of the textbook. You can do argument 1 or argument 2, but not both, then any of arguments 3–6. Note that commas are used to separate the premises from each other. ~M, (~M • ~N) → (Q → P), P → R, ~N, therefore, Q → R ~F → ~G, P → ~Q, ~F v P, (~G v ~Q) → (L • M), therefore, L ~(Z v Y) → ~W, ~U → ~(Z v Y), (~U → ~W) → (T → S), S → (R v P), [T → (RvP)] → [(~R v K) • ~K], therefore, ~K (S v U) • ~U, S → [T • (F v G)], [T v (J • P)] → (~B • E), therefore, S • ~B ~X → (~Y → ~Z), X v (W → U), ~Y v W, ~X • T, (~Z v U) → ~S, therefore, (R v ~S) • T (C → Q) • (~L → ~R), (S → C) • (~N → ~L), ~Q • J, ~Q → (S v ~N), therefore, ~R Natural deduction is so called because it is a model for how we naturally reason. The symbols allow us to focus on the form of the argument, allowing for clarity of reasoning. We should be able to translate our symbols into natural language. Each…
please type out so i can copy paste*** Exercise 1.5.4: Logical relationships between the inverse, converse, and contrapositive. Use the laws of propositional logic to prove each of the following assertions. Start by defining a generic conditional statement p → q, and then restate the assertion as the equivalence or non-equivalence of two propositions using p and q. Finally prove that the two propositions are equivalent or non-equivalent. For example, the statement: "A conditional statement is not logically equivalent to its converse" is proven by showing that that p → q is not logically equivalent to q → p. (a) A conditional statement is not logically equivalent to its converse. (b) A conditional statement is not logically equivalent to its inverse. (c) A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. (d) The converse and inverse of a conditional statement are logically equivalent.
Using predicate logic, prove the following argument. (Hint: The deductionmethod still applies.)(∀y)[P(x) → Q(x, y)] → [P(x) → (∀y)Q(x, y)]
Construct direct proofs to show that the following symbolic arguments are valid. Commas mark the breaks between premises. 1. ~(J∙L), (~J v ~L)→~M, ~E v (M v ~S) ∴ ~(S∙E) 2. (B∨A)→C, ~B→D, ~D ∴ C 3. ~(O∙N), (~O→S)∙(~N→T) ∴ S v T
For each statement below, declare the propositions and then write the statements in symbolic logic. If you are using a quantifier make sure that you declare the domain as well. 1. Jose is a computer science student, but Jose is not a math student. 2. If Trinh goes to the store, then Trinh will buy ice cream. 3. There is an integer x, such that ??2 is even and x is less than zero. 4. Any number that can be written as a ratio of integers is a rational number. 5. The program is readable only if it is well structured.
Is it possible for a valid argument have a false premises (plural) and a false conclusion? Give an example using only 2 premises, Make sure that all three statements are obviously false to the average reader.