There's no bravery in an unfair fight
The claim that the fleas in a jar experiment is true is false.
A catuskoti logical argument is a form of reasoning that allows for four possible truth values: true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false. An example of a catuskoti argument could be: "This statement is true, this statement is false, this statement is both true and false, this statement is neither true nor false." This type of argument is often used in Eastern philosophy to explore paradoxes and contradictions.
The information I have found contradicts the statement "not true," indicating that it is indeed false.
One classic example of a paradox is the "liar paradox," which revolves around a statement that cannot consistently be true or false. An example would be the statement "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then it must be false, but if it is false, then it must be true, creating a paradoxical situation.
The below statement is false. The above statement is true. I am lying. I am lying when I say I am lying.
True
False
True AND False OR True evaluates to True. IT seems like it does not matter which is evaluated first as: (True AND False) OR True = False OR True = True True AND (False OR True) = True AND True = True But, it does matter as with False AND False OR True: (False AND False) OR True = False OR True = True False AND (False OR True) = False AND True = False and True OR False AND False: (True OR False) AND False = True AND False = False True OR (False AND False) = True OR False = True Evaluated left to right gives a different answer if the operators are reversed (as can be seen above), so AND and OR need an order of evaluation. AND can be replaced by multiply, OR by add, and BODMAS says multiply is evaluated before add; thus AND should be evaluated before OR - the C programming language follows this convention. This makes the original question: True AND False OR True = (True AND False) OR True = False OR True = True
false
False. It is software.
True
Assuming that you mean not (p or q) if and only if P ~(PVQ)--> P so now construct a truth table, (just place it vertical since i cannot place it vertical through here.) P True True False False Q True False True False (PVQ) True True True False ~(PVQ) False False False True ~(PVQ)-->P True True True False if it's ~(P^Q) -->P then it's, P True True False False Q True False True False (P^Q) True False False False ~(P^Q) False True True True ~(P^Q)-->P True True False False
Yes. If all the question's parts are true, then the answer is true. If all the question's parts are false, then the answer is false. If one of the question's parts is false and the rest true, then the answer is false. Logically, this is illustrated below using: A = True, B = True, C = True, D = False, E = False, F = False A and B and C = True D and E and F = False A and B and D = False If you add NOT, it's a bit more complicated. A and NOT(D) = True and True = True NOT(D) and D = True and False = False NOT(A) and NOT(B) = False and False = False Using OR adds another layer of complexity. A OR NOT(E) = True OR True = True NOT(D) OR D = True OR False = False NOT(A) OR NOT(B) = False OR False = False Logic is easy once you understand the rules.
False.
false
true and false it depends
False 1/3 = 0.33333333333 Repeating or 33.33333333333333 Repeating % 33% = 0.33