Logic Question

[vqc]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

[WildBobAA]

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

This is not necessarily a true statement. For example say A = Animals and C = Birds, the statement would then read "If some Animals are not Birds, then some Birds are not Animals". Which is obviously not true.

Also, I've studied logic as applied to statistics and calculus and I've never heard the term "logical reverse"

[vqc]

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

This is not necessarily a true statement. For example say A = Animals and C = Birds, the statement would then read "If some Animals are not Birds, then some Birds are not Animals". Which is obviously not true.

Also, I've studied logic as applied to statistics and calculus and I've never heard the term "logical reverse"

Ya my example was a mess up, i moved the not when i shouldnt have.

It should have said
If some A are Not C
then
Some Not C are A

Im pretty much asking for what would be the correct thing backwards
I figured out the answer tho so Im ok.

[Lukie]

Me and my infinite wisdom's first impression was this:

Most R are not P



ps I was just going to reply with 'worst thread ever', but I'm going to see where this goes first.

[givememyleg]

Instead of letting this thread die, let's make it a logical riddle thread...

This is a riddle a did a few years back in school for extra credit and took me a very long time to solve. I actually forgot how I got the answer so I am doing it again: (Don't be a nub and google the answer and ruin it for everyone kthx)


Einstein's Riddle

- In a street there are five houses, painted five different colors.

- In each house lives a person of different nationality

- These five homeowners each drink a different kind of beverage, smoke different brand of cigar and keep a different pet.

Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish?

Necessary clues:

1. The British man lives in a red house.
2. The Swedish man keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Danish man drinks tea.
4. The Green house is next to, and on the left of the White house.
5. The owner of the Green house drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow house smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the center house drinks milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The Blends smoker lives next to the one who drinks water.

Hint, make a chart.

[givememyleg]

So anyone have any extra time?

[givememyleg]

BOOM done... only took about 20 mins that time

[jackvance]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

Edit: I messed it up

Most P are not R

is in the form x=y
with x=Most P and y=not R

And NOT (x=y) => x != y

So:

Most P are not not R
or
Most P are R

EDIT2: hm maybe this is not what you're looking for..?

[Miffed22001]

i think that

beer > logic

[sandstorm]

mmm beer

[Irisheyes]

BOOM done... only took about 20 mins that time

40mins while 4 tabling.

[givememyleg]

BOOM done... only took about 20 mins that time

40mins while 4 tabling.

Damn I was 12tabling, you win...

[DaNutsInYoEye]

We R waiting to C you post A pic of your girlfriend.

[spoonitnow]

We R waiting to C you post A pic of your girlfriend.

lol nh

[mrhappy333]

If crack = C and Beer = B and Rum = R
then E=mc squared

[swiggidy]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

This isn't formulated properly for a logic statement. "Most" is too vague and would never be used. The only terms I have ever seen are "There exists", meaning there is at least one, and "All".

As played...
Ax P(x) -> !R(x)

The "reverse"
!(Ax P(x) -> !R(x))
Ex !(P(x) -> !R(x))
Ex (!!R(x) -> !P(x))
Ex (R(x) -> !P(x))

So, assuming "some" is the opposite (or reverse) of "most", my answer is:
Some R are not P

Note:
Ex => The exists an x (There are some x, in this case)
A => All x (Most x, in this case)
! => not

If the problem was "All P are not R" then the inverse is "There exists an R that is not P"

[swiggidy]

It should have said
If some A are Not C
then
Some Not C are A

Im pretty much asking for what would be the correct thing backwards

I don't think these statements have any logical correlation

[Warpe]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

Some P are R is the only logical conclusion you can draw.

[samsonite2100]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

Some P are R is the only logical conclusion you can draw.

I agree with this.

[vqc]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

Some P are R is the only logical conclusion you can draw.

I agree with this.

You can also say that:
Some things that are Not R are P

I.E.
If Most Plants are Not red
THen SOme things that are not Red are Plants.

[swiggidy]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

Some P are R is the only logical conclusion you can draw.

I agree with this.

You can also say that:
Some things that are Not R are P

How are you differentiating between some and most?
Does most mean that some are not, or could it be all (i.e. Is it possible "All P are not R")?
Is this problem from a class at school?

[vqc]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

Some P are R is the only logical conclusion you can draw.

I agree with this.

You can also say that:
Some things that are Not R are P

How are you differentiating between some and most?
Does most mean that some are not, or could it be all (i.e. Is it possible "All P are not R")?
Is this problem from a class at school?

Some ranges from 1-All
Most means a majority of

Im studying for my LSATs

[swiggidy]

Some ranges from 1-All
Most means a majority of

These definitions would never fly from a philosophical logic (barely from a mathematical logic) viewpoint. But whatever, it is what it is.

Some things that are Not R are P
This is the only logical conclusion.

Some P are R
The problem with this is in the definition. If a majority could be all, then the sets could be disjoint. This statement is then false.

If majority := (population/2 + 1) through (All-1), only then is it true.

You could add:
Some P are not R
although it is trivial

Im studying for my LSATs

Cool, well good luck.

[vqc]

Some ranges from 1-All
Most means a majority of

These definitions would never fly from a philosophical logic (barely from a mathematical logic) viewpoint. But whatever, it is what it is.

Some things that are Not R are P
This is the only logical conclusion.

Some P are R
The problem with this is in the definition. If a majority could be all, then the sets could be disjoint. This statement is then false.

If majority := (population/2 + 1) through (All-1), only then is it true.

You could add:
Some P are not R
although it is trivial

Im studying for my LSATs

Cool, well good luck.

LSATs aside could u explain to me the whole
wouldnt fly from a philosophical logic viewpoint thing?

I can define the word Some in so many ways...

[swiggidy]

LSATs aside could u explain to me the whole
wouldnt fly from a philosophical logic viewpoint thing?

I can define the word Some in so many ways...

I'm thinking from a formal logic or symbolic logic viewpoint. Your 2nd sentence is exactly why it wouldn't fly (which is why I asked before because I wasn't sure how to interpret it).

In math it is very simple.
0 or 0 => 1
1 or 0 => 1
1 or 1 => 1

There is no confusion. For formal logic they attempt to convert english (any language but that's what we are using) into a format that has no confusion. The only two quantifiers used are "The exists" (backwards E) or "All" (upside down A). These are easily defined, E, there is at least one, could be all, maybe not. I think all is straightforward.

So a statement like most flowers are not red would become
E(x) [F(x) ^ !R(x)]
which says, there exists something which is a flower and it is not red.
"Some flowers are not red" would have the exact same formulation.

{NOTE: I think I screwed up in my first post with the translation}

Anyway, words like some and most are removed because of the ambiguity. If a specific definition was created it would be OK, (i.e. some <=> 1 through all (which is the same as there exists)).

I hope that was a clear enough explanation.

[vqc]

The funny thing is
this example came out of the formal logic section of the book.

Ok i read ur explanation again and I guess the "some" that is used is equilvalent to "there exists".

Anywho, thanks for the explanation!
I guess that Masters was worth something afterall =P

[swiggidy]

The funny thing is
this example came out of the formal logic section of the book.

I'm not terribly surprised. Ambiguous wording leads to loop holes. I'm sure you'll see this come up a lot through law school.

Where do you want to go?

Anywho, thanks for the explanation!
I guess that Masters was worth something afterall =P

No prob. This was actually from my undergrad. I thought this was a cool post because I haven't really thought about this idea for 3-4 years.

[vqc]

The funny thing is
this example came out of the formal logic section of the book.

I'm not terribly surprised. Ambiguous wording leads to loop holes. I'm sure you'll see this come up a lot through law school.

Where do you want to go?

Anywho, thanks for the explanation!
I guess that Masters was worth something afterall =P

No prob. This was actually from my undergrad. I thought this was a cool post because I haven't really thought about this idea for 3-4 years.

Stanford
Berkeley
UCLA

[bluey]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most black people are not Rich

most rich people are not black

ftw

[givememyleg]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

[thenonsequitur]

The other half are boys too.

[givememyleg]

The other half are boys too.

Bingo bango.

[thenonsequitur]

Two girls are born to the same mother on the same day (same month, year, etc..) but they're not twins. How is this possible?

[jackvance]

part of a triplet

[thenonsequitur]

part of a triplet

you win. here's a cookie:

[givememyleg]

part of a triplet

Has to be it.

[givememyleg]

You are in a room with 2 doors, one will lead to paradise and the other will lead to hell. The 2 doors are identical and you do not know which door will lead to which. In front of the 2 doors are 2 computers. One will ALWAYS lie while the other ALWAYS speaks the truth.

You must ask ONE question for you to find out which door leads to paradise or hell. What question should you ask?

[jackvance]

"What will the other computer answer if I ask which door goes to paradise?"

Then the opposite is always the truth.

[AvatarKava]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

Gabe is the 7th child?

Hermaphrodite ftw?

[givememyleg]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

Gabe is the 7th child?

Hermaphrodite ftw?

That was the other correct answer.

[Lukie]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

Gabe is the 7th child?

Hermaphrodite ftw?

That was the obviously correct answer.

ZING!

[Halv]

Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish?.

The norwegian. Didn't read the clues, though.

[givememyleg]

Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish?.

The norwegian. Didn't read the clues, though.

Nope.

[chardrian]

I just filled in the letter B whenever I didn't know the answer - it seemed to work for me.

[swiggidy]

I just filled in the letter B whenever I didn't know the answer - it seemed to work for me.

Nice.

You know every fills in C.
You know they know everyone fills in C.
So you fill in B instead.

[chardrian]

LSAT metagame.

woot!!

[Halv]

Einstein's riddle is: Who owns the fish?.

The norwegian. Didn't read the clues, though.

Nope.

Yep. (guess where I'm from )

[spoonitnow]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

The lower halves are boys and the upper halves are girls.

Anyone else into chicks with dicks besides me?

[spoonitnow]

You are in a room with 2 doors, one will lead to paradise and the other will lead to hell. The 2 doors are identical and you do not know which door will lead to which. In front of the 2 doors are 2 computers. One will ALWAYS lie while the other ALWAYS speaks the truth.

You must ask ONE question for you to find out which door leads to paradise or hell. What question should you ask?

Ask one computer what the other one would say if you asked it which door led to paradise, then pick the other door.

[AvatarKava]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

The lower halves are boys and the upper halves are girls.

Anyone else into chicks with dicks besides me?

See my post above.

[Lukie]

lock plz

[chardrian]

A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. how is this possible?

The lower halves are boys and the upper halves are girls.

Anyone else into chicks with dicks besides me?

Woo hoo!! At least someone loves me!

[Ash256]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

This isn't formulated properly for a logic statement. "Most" is too vague and would never be used. The only terms I have ever seen are "There exists", meaning there is at least one, and "All".

As played...
Ax P(x) -> !R(x)

The "reverse"
!(Ax P(x) -> !R(x))
Ex !(P(x) -> !R(x))
Ex (!!R(x) -> !P(x))
Ex (R(x) -> !P(x))

So, assuming "some" is the opposite (or reverse) of "most", my answer is:
Some R are not P

Note:
Ex => The exists an x (There are some x, in this case)
A => All x (Most x, in this case)
! => not

If the problem was "All P are not R" then the inverse is "There exists an R that is not P"

Damn. You FTRers are too smart. I'ma go to another poker forum, talk to some people about doomswitches and rigged poker and lucky hands and that.

[bluey]

there is a wolf, cow and a bale of hay. there is a river that the farmer wants to take them acrosss. he can only fit one item in his boat at a time and must leave the others on the shore to come back and pick them up on another trip. if the wolf and cow are left alone the wolf eats the cow. if the cow is left with the bale of hay the cow eats the bale of hay. how does the farmer get all the items across?


its not hard.

[jackvance]

there is a wolf, cow and a bale of hay. there is a river that the farmer wants to take them acrosss. he can only fit one item in his boat at a time and must leave the others on the shore to come back and pick them up on another trip. if the wolf and cow are left alone the wolf eats the cow. if the cow is left with the bale of hay the cow eats the bale of hay. how does the farmer get all the items across?


its not hard.

ship cow over
come back
ship wold over
take cow back
ship hay over
come back
ship cow over
done

[bluey]

4mins. i got it in 30secs, i win.

[jackvance]

If we account for posting lag and typing overhead, I had it in 24.3 seconds. I win.

[Kessler]

ya'll are some fart smellers.


-Kes

[gabe]

heeeeeeey how come i got owned in this thread

Green
German
Coffee
Prince
Fish

Only took me 1 years, 11 months and 8 days

[Ragnar4]

What is the logical reverse of this statement:
Most P are not R

I.E.
If some A are not C
then,
some C are not A

I know this is a hell old thread, but according to logic 101 some statements cannot be logically reversed.

The reason is that you A) have over qualified and B) that used too many negatives C) The qualitative, or warranting argument does not exist.

Before I move on. Let's just take a look at some real life examples

If it doesn't snow tomorow, I will not go skiing. You cannot reverse this, because it is not a logical statement in itself. There are too many negatives. It fails the logic litmus.

Also:

If it does snow tomorow, I will go skiing, is a perfectly acceptable logical statement, but, if it does not snow tomorow I will not go skiing is not acceptable. A For reasons undefied, and B) the argument simply won't stand up under pressure, just because it didn't snow (unless it's the first snow of the year) does not mean you can't go skiing.

Which brings us, finally to our resting place.

If your logical statement were
Most Fish are not Trout (Most C are not A) The logical statement would be
Some Fish are trout. Acceptable and reversable.

Sadly C and A are equally vast, (or definite) in their description, so you cannot reverse a statement that you do not know in the first place to be true. So your question is answered thusly: IT'S A TARP This type of statement is accepted as a Truism, and inconvertable.



This definition is paraphrased from Riekke and Sillars 300 level College course guide on argumentation.

[swiggidy]

My posts confuse me.

[a500lbgorilla]

sick bump

[vqc]

balla, awesome answer. Its ok tho, I'm in law school now, no need for logic.

[BankItDrew]

most R are P

[JKDS]

i got a c in logic...professor had this outline that he expected everyone to follow and if we didnt we lost points. the outline changed for every assignment, and he never showed it to us....