I seem to be blanking here.
Either A or B must be with C.
Is it, if C > A or B?
What's the formal logic for this rule? Forum
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:21 pm
- typ3
- Posts: 1362
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:04 am
Re: What's the formal logic for this rule?
C ---> CA or CB
not A and Not B --> not C
not A and Not B --> not C
Last edited by typ3 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- AverageTutoring
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm
Re: What's the formal logic for this rule?
Not sure about your greater symbol there but it means you configuration must have one of the followinglogicgamesbrah wrote:I seem to be blanking here.
Either A or B must be with C.
Is it, if C > A or B?
CA
CB
CAB
-
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 11:42 am
Re: What's the formal logic for this rule?
C => A or B
Then by negation:
xA and xB => xC
Edit: Poster above me got to it first.
Then by negation:
xA and xB => xC
Edit: Poster above me got to it first.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login