№17305080[Quote]
brapzil
№17305144[Quote]
My brain has been so fried by years of agony that I can't interact with this
№17305149[Quote]
forall x ((Hat(x) AND Own(P,x)) -> Green(x))
P always lies, so this statement is false:
NOT forall x ((Hat(x) AND Own(P,x)) -> Green(x))
Negating:
exists x (Hat(x) AND Own(P,x) AND NOT Green(x))
Therefore:
exists x (Hat(x) AND Own(P,x))
=> (A) is correct
№17305157[Quote]
Option (F) I is ESL and are wonned
№17305159[Quote]
Its just language shit
№17305162[Quote]
A
№17305168[Quote]
A is obvious because if he had 0 hats he'd also have 0 green hats and therefore all of his hats would be green, however we cannot conclude anything else
№17305171[Quote]
WHICH ONE IS IT
№17305176[Quote]
either A or D considering the hat in xis picture is green
№17305178[Quote]
>>17305058 (OP)abde
ez question geg
№17305196[Quote]
>>17305149not hat, hats so it's always x>1 nusoi
№17305198[Quote]
It can be multiple
№17305200[Quote]
Not all my hats are green => has at least two hats, at least one of them is green
№17305208[Quote]
>>17305196When referring to the total of a group, even if that total is 1, you always say plural.
№17305215[Quote]
@grok
№17305242[Quote]
>>17305200It doesn’t limit him to only two hats
№17305249[Quote]
first sentence basically says the second one is false
there needs to be at least 1 non-green hat for statement 2 to be false
№17305251[Quote]
>>17305208a set of 1 is a singleton set, you don't refer to it in plural
№17305256[Quote]
>>17305242I said at least nigger
№17305276[Quote]
>>17305251I guess, but that assumes xe's being open about the quantitative range of the set, which is unlikely. In which in that case, xe is referring to a set of an unknown quantity which is always plural.
№17305287[Quote]
>>17305249which pretty much means answer A
№17305290[Quote]
I hate being a retard. i dont even know how to read this question.
№17305296[Quote]
if he has no hats then it's a lie regardless of the color
If he does have hats It means at least one must NOT be green
№17305303[Quote]
Brapsilien dialectics are one hell of a drug
№17305355[Quote]
gemini says:
If he had NO hats: The statement "All my hats are green" would technically be a vacuous truth. In formal logic, any blanket statement made about an empty set is automatically considered true (e.g., "All my fire-breathing dragons are pink" is a true statement if I own zero dragons). Because Pinocchio is legally forbidden from telling the truth, he cannot have zero hats.
№17305398[Quote]
I guess the negation of the allquantor is exists, so basically it is: there exists one hat that isnt green so A