That was amusing... now to get picky.bitmongerJanuary 6 2009, 21:59:31 UTC
I can't decide, but I feel #10 is ambiguous enough to be wrong.
"Paris is in New Zealand." is not the same thing as "Paris is wholely contained within New Zealand"
So if we answer this as a question posed on set membership (as implied by 'in') we have a problem. (Thus assuming Paris is a set not a element which is also part of the problem here)
As a logic statement:
There exists no x in Paris that is not also in New Zealand. or All members of Paris are members of New Zealand
rather than:
There exists an x in Paris in that is also in New Zealand.
Comments 6
Reply
"Paris is in New Zealand." is not the same thing as
"Paris is wholely contained within New Zealand"
So if we answer this as a question posed on set membership (as implied by 'in') we have a problem. (Thus assuming Paris is a set not a element which is also part of the problem here)
As a logic statement:
There exists no x in Paris that is not also in New Zealand.
or
All members of Paris are members of New Zealand
rather than:
There exists an x in Paris in that is also in New Zealand.
Reply
Rome is in Italy.
Rome is in Ohio.
Which we can represent as a graph in a logically constant manner.
Rome
|--> Italy
'--> Ohio
(Ok, I _thought_ I was done being picky... I wasn't)
:)
Reply
So I guess someone didn't get 100%?
;)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment