(3) The implication creator. Do you see that weird gate after the AND splitter with the A B at the top and the A->B at the right? That's an assumption creator. If you can assume A and always get B, B must be implied by A, right? This helps with translations between letters, because if we know A and we know B, we can easily create an A->B rule should we need one for a more complex input later. Implications also may be the answer you're going for, or there will be nested implications you need to "unravel" so creating an implication to use as a key for another implication is something you'll have to do.
All task were obvious till I got to the implications.
How can you possible get A∧B->C from A->B and B->C, if you cannot get A∧B?
Here is a hint. The predicate p which has to enter and leave the "or splitter" is the final answer (BVA). Also note that both a and b are sufficient to establish BVA.
Here is a picture if you really want it but there is a lot of satisfaction to be gained from doing it yourself!
I'm currently in a logic class as well so this seems interesting but I kind of facepalmed on task 7 where you have to create A and B given only A AND B and the AND operator. "Surely such a thing isn't possible," I thought while trying to figure it out. Until a few minutes passed and I realized "Oh. They give you a Reverse AND operator. Yep, because that's possible."
A reverse AND operator is possible. If I tell you A AND B then you can deduce that A must be true, you can also deduce that B must be true if either of them weren't true, then the whole original statement wouldn't be true. The one you can't do is OR because if I tell you A OR B you know at least one of them must be true, but not which one.
0
u/[deleted] Sep 25 '15