What is the meaning of the statement “Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened.”?

-1

Does it mean:

1. If a tiger/lion is hungry or threatened, it certainly WILL attack.

or does it mean:

2. A tiger/lion will attack ONLY if it is hungry or threatened (and never otherwise).

I want to know because the answer to this question will decide how I answer the following question on my test:

Which one of the first order predicate calculus statements given below
correctly expresses the following English statement?

"Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened."

A. ∀x[(tiger(x)∧lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

B. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))∧attacks(x)]

C. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→attacks(x)→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))]

D. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

I'd select option D. if 1. was the correct meaning and option C. if 2. was.

Which one is the correct meaning?

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

1

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about English as much as one or more other disciplines.

– J. Taylor
2 days ago

I can explain what the symbols in the options stand for. The options are basically statements of implication. For example, option C. reads "For all x, if (x is a tiger) OR (x is a lion), THEN, if x attacks, THEN x must be hungry OR threatened"

– Rahul
2 days ago

2

None of them are correct. These are Generic sentences; consider that both the noun phrases and the verb phrases are generic here -- this is second-order quantification. Further, generic verb phrases don't use the familiar logical quantifiers -- consider Bill walks to work -- is it false if somebody gave him a ride one day? How about once a month? Once a week? Or consider That dog bites -- how many bites are we talking about here; and what are we quantifying over? For generic noun phrases, see this discussion.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

If those are the only choices, I'd go with D; but of course in normal English usage sentences like these do not correspond to strict predicate-calculus interpretations.

– Hellion
2 days ago

2

Of course it's ill-formed; it assumes that English is structured the same way as predicate calculus, which is ridiculous. Logic is just a stick-figure representation of semantics, and can't capture anything with the slightest degree of continuity in it, which is most of natural language. Statements about "truth" are really statements about personal judgements of probability, and humans know this. So quantifiers don't really help.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

|
show 6 more comments

-1

Does it mean:

1. If a tiger/lion is hungry or threatened, it certainly WILL attack.

or does it mean:

2. A tiger/lion will attack ONLY if it is hungry or threatened (and never otherwise).

I want to know because the answer to this question will decide how I answer the following question on my test:

Which one of the first order predicate calculus statements given below
correctly expresses the following English statement?

"Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened."

A. ∀x[(tiger(x)∧lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

B. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))∧attacks(x)]

C. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→attacks(x)→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))]

D. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

I'd select option D. if 1. was the correct meaning and option C. if 2. was.

Which one is the correct meaning?

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

1

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about English as much as one or more other disciplines.

– J. Taylor
2 days ago

I can explain what the symbols in the options stand for. The options are basically statements of implication. For example, option C. reads "For all x, if (x is a tiger) OR (x is a lion), THEN, if x attacks, THEN x must be hungry OR threatened"

– Rahul
2 days ago

2

None of them are correct. These are Generic sentences; consider that both the noun phrases and the verb phrases are generic here -- this is second-order quantification. Further, generic verb phrases don't use the familiar logical quantifiers -- consider Bill walks to work -- is it false if somebody gave him a ride one day? How about once a month? Once a week? Or consider That dog bites -- how many bites are we talking about here; and what are we quantifying over? For generic noun phrases, see this discussion.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

If those are the only choices, I'd go with D; but of course in normal English usage sentences like these do not correspond to strict predicate-calculus interpretations.

– Hellion
2 days ago

2

Of course it's ill-formed; it assumes that English is structured the same way as predicate calculus, which is ridiculous. Logic is just a stick-figure representation of semantics, and can't capture anything with the slightest degree of continuity in it, which is most of natural language. Statements about "truth" are really statements about personal judgements of probability, and humans know this. So quantifiers don't really help.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

|
show 6 more comments

-1

Does it mean:

1. If a tiger/lion is hungry or threatened, it certainly WILL attack.

or does it mean:

2. A tiger/lion will attack ONLY if it is hungry or threatened (and never otherwise).

I want to know because the answer to this question will decide how I answer the following question on my test:

Which one of the first order predicate calculus statements given below
correctly expresses the following English statement?

"Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened."

A. ∀x[(tiger(x)∧lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

B. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))∧attacks(x)]

C. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→attacks(x)→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))]

D. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

I'd select option D. if 1. was the correct meaning and option C. if 2. was.

Which one is the correct meaning?

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

Does it mean:

1. If a tiger/lion is hungry or threatened, it certainly WILL attack.

or does it mean:

2. A tiger/lion will attack ONLY if it is hungry or threatened (and never otherwise).

I want to know because the answer to this question will decide how I answer the following question on my test:

Which one of the first order predicate calculus statements given below
correctly expresses the following English statement?

"Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened."

A. ∀x[(tiger(x)∧lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

B. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))∧attacks(x)]

C. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→attacks(x)→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))]

D. ∀x[(tiger(x)∨lion(x))→(hungry(x)∨threatened(x))→attacks(x)]

I'd select option D. if 1. was the correct meaning and option C. if 2. was.

Which one is the correct meaning?

ambiguity conditionals

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

asked 2 days ago

Rahul

1

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about English as much as one or more other disciplines.

– J. Taylor
2 days ago

I can explain what the symbols in the options stand for. The options are basically statements of implication. For example, option C. reads "For all x, if (x is a tiger) OR (x is a lion), THEN, if x attacks, THEN x must be hungry OR threatened"

– Rahul
2 days ago

2

None of them are correct. These are Generic sentences; consider that both the noun phrases and the verb phrases are generic here -- this is second-order quantification. Further, generic verb phrases don't use the familiar logical quantifiers -- consider Bill walks to work -- is it false if somebody gave him a ride one day? How about once a month? Once a week? Or consider That dog bites -- how many bites are we talking about here; and what are we quantifying over? For generic noun phrases, see this discussion.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

If those are the only choices, I'd go with D; but of course in normal English usage sentences like these do not correspond to strict predicate-calculus interpretations.

– Hellion
2 days ago

2

Of course it's ill-formed; it assumes that English is structured the same way as predicate calculus, which is ridiculous. Logic is just a stick-figure representation of semantics, and can't capture anything with the slightest degree of continuity in it, which is most of natural language. Statements about "truth" are really statements about personal judgements of probability, and humans know this. So quantifiers don't really help.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

|
show 6 more comments

1

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about English as much as one or more other disciplines.

– J. Taylor
2 days ago

I can explain what the symbols in the options stand for. The options are basically statements of implication. For example, option C. reads "For all x, if (x is a tiger) OR (x is a lion), THEN, if x attacks, THEN x must be hungry OR threatened"

– Rahul
2 days ago

2

None of them are correct. These are Generic sentences; consider that both the noun phrases and the verb phrases are generic here -- this is second-order quantification. Further, generic verb phrases don't use the familiar logical quantifiers -- consider Bill walks to work -- is it false if somebody gave him a ride one day? How about once a month? Once a week? Or consider That dog bites -- how many bites are we talking about here; and what are we quantifying over? For generic noun phrases, see this discussion.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

If those are the only choices, I'd go with D; but of course in normal English usage sentences like these do not correspond to strict predicate-calculus interpretations.

– Hellion
2 days ago

2

Of course it's ill-formed; it assumes that English is structured the same way as predicate calculus, which is ridiculous. Logic is just a stick-figure representation of semantics, and can't capture anything with the slightest degree of continuity in it, which is most of natural language. Statements about "truth" are really statements about personal judgements of probability, and humans know this. So quantifiers don't really help.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about English as much as one or more other disciplines.

– J. Taylor
2 days ago

I can explain what the symbols in the options stand for. The options are basically statements of implication. For example, option C. reads "For all x, if (x is a tiger) OR (x is a lion), THEN, if x attacks, THEN x must be hungry OR threatened"

– Rahul
2 days ago

None of them are correct. These are Generic sentences; consider that both the noun phrases and the verb phrases are generic here -- this is second-order quantification. Further, generic verb phrases don't use the familiar logical quantifiers -- consider Bill walks to work -- is it false if somebody gave him a ride one day? How about once a month? Once a week? Or consider That dog bites -- how many bites are we talking about here; and what are we quantifying over? For generic noun phrases, see this discussion.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

If those are the only choices, I'd go with D; but of course in normal English usage sentences like these do not correspond to strict predicate-calculus interpretations.

– Hellion
2 days ago

Of course it's ill-formed; it assumes that English is structured the same way as predicate calculus, which is ridiculous. Logic is just a stick-figure representation of semantics, and can't capture anything with the slightest degree of continuity in it, which is most of natural language. Statements about "truth" are really statements about personal judgements of probability, and humans know this. So quantifiers don't really help.

– John Lawler
2 days ago

|
show 6 more comments

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

For your present purposes,

Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened

is equivalent to

If they are hungry or threatened, then tigers and lions attack

(so 1. is correct),

which is (in your present context) equivalent to D.

Note that your purposes concern a very restricted setting, which is why J. Taylor says your question is off topic; it's not really about natural language. As far as more natural settings (i.e. not logic classes), see John Lawler's and Hellion's comments, above.

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

|
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482339%2fwhat-is-the-meaning-of-the-statement-tigers-and-lions-attack-if-they-are-hungry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

For your present purposes,

Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened

is equivalent to

If they are hungry or threatened, then tigers and lions attack

(so 1. is correct),

which is (in your present context) equivalent to D.

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

|
show 1 more comment

For your present purposes,

Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened

is equivalent to

If they are hungry or threatened, then tigers and lions attack

(so 1. is correct),

which is (in your present context) equivalent to D.

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

|
show 1 more comment

For your present purposes,

Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened

is equivalent to

If they are hungry or threatened, then tigers and lions attack

(so 1. is correct),

which is (in your present context) equivalent to D.

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

For your present purposes,

Tigers and lions attack if they are hungry or threatened

is equivalent to

If they are hungry or threatened, then tigers and lions attack

(so 1. is correct),

which is (in your present context) equivalent to D.

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

answered 2 days ago

linguisticturn

5,3761332

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

|
show 1 more comment

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Thanks for the explanation. I have a doubt, though. Can you always do that to an "if" statement? That is, write "A if B" as "if B then A"? What if the statement is "I'll go out if the weather is fine"? Writing it as "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" makes it sound like "if the weather is fine, then I HAVE to go out" but there is no such imperative in the first statement.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Your teacher or assistant or text for the class in which this is a problem should be able to answer these kinds of subtle questions. Remember that these kinds of questions are about the truth of the statement so "If the weather is fine, then I will go out" implies "If the weather is fine, then I must go out, if the statement 'If the weather is fine, then I will go out,' is to be understood as true".

– Mitch
2 days ago

@Rahul As we all said, your setting is not that of natural language. The formal logic you use in the problems for this class does not have formal resources to talk about imperatives and so on (probably; check with your instructor). So yes, in the context of your class (probably; check with your instructor) both 'A if B' and 'if B then A' are equivalent to the material conditional, 'not-B or A'.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

Okay. So the "absolute" (mathematical) approach is preferred as opposed to the ambiguous (natural language) approach if I'm understanding it correctly. Got it. Sadly, this question was not part of a class test or such, but was asked in an exam that is taken by around 100,000 graduate students every year for admissions to M.Tech in Computer Science & Engg., which I am also giving this year. Releasing official "keys" to the paper wasn't a thing the year this question was asked so we are left to guessing, though the overwhelming majority believes D to be the right answer so there's that.

– Rahul
2 days ago

@Rahul Still, the very fact that one of the answers A-D is supposed to be correct indicates that the setting is just like it would be for a logic class. This not about real lions and tigers, but about how in some contexts (math, computer science, certain branches of philisophy) one can transliterate back and forth betwen symbolic formulas and English sentences. The point is that this transliteration is purely formal, that is, it does not matter what the words 'tiger', 'lion', 'attacks', 'hungry', or 'threatened' mean. All this also shows why your question is arguably off topic for this site.

– linguisticturn
2 days ago

|
show 1 more comment

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Argthtjtr