Mockingbird edits (#27)
Reviewed-on: #27
This commit was merged in pull request #27.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -81,5 +81,6 @@
|
|||||||
\input{parts/00 intro}
|
\input{parts/00 intro}
|
||||||
\input{parts/01 tmam}
|
\input{parts/01 tmam}
|
||||||
\input{parts/02 kestrel}
|
\input{parts/02 kestrel}
|
||||||
|
\input{parts/03 bonus}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Complete his proof.
|
|||||||
\lineno{} let A \cmnt{Let A be any any bird.}
|
\lineno{} let A \cmnt{Let A be any any bird.}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let Cx = A(Mx) \cmnt{Define C as the composition of A and M}
|
\lineno{} let Cx = A(Mx) \cmnt{Define C as the composition of A and M}
|
||||||
\lineno{} CC = A(MC)
|
\lineno{} CC = A(MC)
|
||||||
\lineno{} = A(CC) \qed{}
|
\lineno{} = A(CC)
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Show that the laws of the forest guarantee that at least one bird is egocentric.
|
|||||||
\lineno{}
|
\lineno{}
|
||||||
\lineno{} ME = E \cmnt{By definition of fondness}
|
\lineno{} ME = E \cmnt{By definition of fondness}
|
||||||
\lineno{} ME = EE \cmnt{By definition of M}
|
\lineno{} ME = EE \cmnt{By definition of M}
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} EE = E \qed{}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} EE = E
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Show that if $C$ is agreeable, $A$ is agreeable.
|
|||||||
\lineno{} let y so that Cy = Ey \cmnt{Such a y must exist because C is agreeable}
|
\lineno{} let y so that Cy = Ey \cmnt{Such a y must exist because C is agreeable}
|
||||||
\lineno{}
|
\lineno{}
|
||||||
\lineno{} A(By) = Ey
|
\lineno{} A(By) = Ey
|
||||||
\lineno{} = D(By) \qed{}
|
\lineno{} = D(By)
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -129,6 +129,20 @@ Given three arbitrary birds $A$, $B$, and $C$, show that there exists a bird $D$
|
|||||||
We say two birds $A$ and $B$ are \textit{compatible} if there are birds $x$ and $y$ so that $Ax = y$ and $By = x$. \\
|
We say two birds $A$ and $B$ are \textit{compatible} if there are birds $x$ and $y$ so that $Ax = y$ and $By = x$. \\
|
||||||
Note that $x$ and $y$ may be the same bird. \\
|
Note that $x$ and $y$ may be the same bird. \\
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Show that any bird that is fond of at least one bird is compatible with itself.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\begin{solution}
|
||||||
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
|
\lineno{} let A
|
||||||
|
\lineno{} let x so that Ax = x \cmnt{A is fond of at least one other bird}
|
||||||
|
\lineno{} Ax = x
|
||||||
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\problem{}
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
Show that any two birds in this forest are compatible. \\
|
Show that any two birds in this forest are compatible. \\
|
||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
@@ -144,7 +158,6 @@ Show that any two birds in this forest are compatible. \\
|
|||||||
\begin{solution}
|
\begin{solution}
|
||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let A, B
|
\lineno{} let A, B
|
||||||
\lineno{}
|
|
||||||
\lineno{} let Cx = A(Bx) \cmnt{Composition}
|
\lineno{} let Cx = A(Bx) \cmnt{Composition}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let y = Cy \cmnt{Let C be fond of y}
|
\lineno{} let y = Cy \cmnt{Let C be fond of y}
|
||||||
\lineno{}
|
\lineno{}
|
||||||
@@ -152,24 +165,9 @@ Show that any two birds in this forest are compatible. \\
|
|||||||
\lineno{} = A(By)
|
\lineno{} = A(By)
|
||||||
\lineno{}
|
\lineno{}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let x = By \cmnt{Rename By to x}
|
\lineno{} let x = By \cmnt{Rename By to x}
|
||||||
\lineno{} Ax = y \qed{}
|
\lineno{} Ax = y
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\vfill
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\problem{}
|
|
||||||
Show that any bird that is fond of at least one bird is compatible with itself.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{solution}
|
|
||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
|
||||||
\lineno{} let A
|
|
||||||
\lineno{} let x so that Ax = x \cmnt{A is fond of at least one other bird}
|
|
||||||
\lineno{} Ax = x \qed{}
|
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
That's it.
|
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\vfill
|
\vfill
|
||||||
\pagebreak
|
\pagebreak
|
||||||
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Say $A$ is fixated on $B$. Is $A$ fond of $B$?
|
|||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let A
|
\lineno{} let A
|
||||||
\lineno{} let B so that Ax = B
|
\lineno{} let B so that Ax = B
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} AB = B \qed{}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} AB = B
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
\vfill
|
\vfill
|
||||||
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Show that an egocentric Kestrel is hopelessly egocentric.
|
|||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
\lineno{} KK = K
|
\lineno{} KK = K
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} (KK)y = K \cmnt{By definition of the Kestrel}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} (KK)y = K \cmnt{By definition of the Kestrel}
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} Ky = K \qed{} \cmnt{By 01}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} Ky = K \cmnt{By 01}
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Given the Law of Composition and the Law of the Mockingbird, show that at least
|
|||||||
\begin{alltt}
|
\begin{alltt}
|
||||||
\lineno{} let A so that KA = A \cmnt{Any bird is fond of at least one bird}
|
\lineno{} let A so that KA = A \cmnt{Any bird is fond of at least one bird}
|
||||||
\lineno{} (KA)y = y \cmnt{By definition of the kestrel}
|
\lineno{} (KA)y = y \cmnt{By definition of the kestrel}
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} Ay = A \qed{} \cmnt{By 01}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} Ay = A \cmnt{By 01}
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Show that $Kx = Ky \implies x = y$.
|
|||||||
\lineno{} (Kx)z = x
|
\lineno{} (Kx)z = x
|
||||||
\lineno{} (Ky)z = y
|
\lineno{} (Ky)z = y
|
||||||
\lineno{}
|
\lineno{}
|
||||||
\lineno{} \thus{} x = (Kx)z = (Ky)z = y \qed{}
|
\lineno{} \thus{} x = (Kx)z = (Ky)z = y
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ An egocentric Kestrel must be extremely lonely. Why is this?
|
|||||||
\lineno{} Ky = K
|
\lineno{} Ky = K
|
||||||
\lineno{} Kx = Ky
|
\lineno{} Kx = Ky
|
||||||
\lineno{} x = y for all x, y \cmnt{By \ref{leftcancel}}
|
\lineno{} x = y for all x, y \cmnt{By \ref{leftcancel}}
|
||||||
\lineno{} x = y = K \qed{} \cmnt{By 10, and since K exists}
|
\lineno{} x = y = K \cmnt{By 10, and since K exists}
|
||||||
\end{alltt}
|
\end{alltt}
|
||||||
\end{solution}
|
\end{solution}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
102
src/Advanced/Mock a Mockingbird/parts/03 bonus.tex
Normal file
102
src/Advanced/Mock a Mockingbird/parts/03 bonus.tex
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
|
|||||||
|
\section{Bonus Problems}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\definition{}
|
||||||
|
The identity bird has sometimes been maligned, owing to
|
||||||
|
the fact that whatever bird x you call to $I$, all $I$ does is to echo
|
||||||
|
$x$ back to you.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vspace{2mm}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Superficially, the bird $I$ appears to have no intelligence or imagination; all it can do is repeat what it hears.
|
||||||
|
For this reason, in the past, thoughtless students of ornithology
|
||||||
|
referred to it as the idiot bird. However, a more profound or-
|
||||||
|
nithologist once studied the situation in great depth and dis-
|
||||||
|
covered that the identity bird is in fact highly intelligent! The
|
||||||
|
real reason for its apparently unimaginative behavior is that it
|
||||||
|
has an unusually large heart and hence is fond of every bird!
|
||||||
|
When you call $x$ to $I$, the reason it responds by calling back $x$
|
||||||
|
is not that it can't think of anything else; it's just that it wants
|
||||||
|
you to know that it is fond of $x$!
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vspace{2mm}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Since an identity bird is fond of every bird, then it is also
|
||||||
|
fond of itself, so every identity bird is egocentric. However,
|
||||||
|
its egocentricity doesn't mean that it is any more fond of itself
|
||||||
|
than of any other bird!.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
The laws of the forest no longer apply.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Suppose we are told that the forest contains an identity bird
|
||||||
|
$I$ and that $I$ is agreeable. \
|
||||||
|
Does it follow that every bird must be fond of at least one bird?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Suppose we are told that there is an identity bird $I$ and that
|
||||||
|
every bird is fond of at least one bird. \
|
||||||
|
Does it necessarily follow that $I$ is agreeable?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
\pagebreak
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Suppose we are told that there is an identity bird $I$, but we are
|
||||||
|
not told whether $I$ is agreeable or not.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
However, we are told that every pair of birds is compatible. \
|
||||||
|
Which of the following conclusiens can be validly drawn?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\begin{itemize}
|
||||||
|
\item Every bird is fond of at least one bird
|
||||||
|
\item $I$ is agreeable.
|
||||||
|
\end{itemize}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
The identity bird $I$, though egocentric, is in general not hope-
|
||||||
|
lessly egocentric. Indeed, if there were a hopelessly egocentric
|
||||||
|
identity bird, the situation would be quite sad. Why?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\definition{}
|
||||||
|
A bird $L$ is called a lark if the following
|
||||||
|
holds for any birds $x$ and $y$:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\[
|
||||||
|
(Lx)y = x(yy)
|
||||||
|
\]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Prove that if the forest contains a lark $L$ and an identity bird
|
||||||
|
$I$, then it must also contain a mockingbird $M$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
\pagebreak
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Why is a hopelessly egocentric lark unusually attractive?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
Assuming that no bird can be both a lark and a kestrel---as
|
||||||
|
any ornithologist knows!---prove that it is impossible for a
|
||||||
|
lark to be fond of a kestrel.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\problem{}
|
||||||
|
It might happen, however, that a kestrel is fond of a lark. \par
|
||||||
|
Show that in this case, \textit{every} bird is fond of the lark.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\vfill
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user