This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: P roblem 1.17 LP L R I K SENGUPTA The function symbol that I am using is height(x), which takes one argument x the name of a person whose height is being compared. The relation symbols "<" and "=" are used in their usual context, i.e. < refers to less than, and = refers to equal to. Each of these last two symbols takes two arguments p and q and compares them. This combination of a unary function symbol and two binary relation symbols allows us to compare the heights of any two people, who serve as the arguments for the function symbols. We use < (height(x), height(y)) to express the height of x is less than the height of y, thereby comparing the heights of our subjects x and y, and concluding that y is taller than x. Similarly, we use = (height(z), height(w)) to express the height of z is equal to the height of w, thereby comparing the heights of our subjects z and w, and concluding that z and w have the same height. So in my language, the answers are: 1. < (height(Sam), height(George)) George is taller than Sam. 2. = (height(Sam), height(Mary)) Sam and Mary are the same height. The only problem we run into is that complex functions are impossible to conceive. For instance, the following expression is undefined: height(height(Sam)) Because the "height of the height of Sam" doesn't make any sense. So it is impossible to form complex composite functions when we use my notation. ...
View
Full
Document
 '08
 DELIA

Click to edit the document details