-
I don't know what to tell you since the terminology you're using is specific to your class. And your last proof is not logically coherent at all. Look at it carefully. Here's a proof by cases. Case 1: A By the premise, A implies not A. Therefore, not A. Case 2: not A Then clearly, not A. QED
-
It's best to ask your instructor.
-
I think you should consult your instructor on these.
-
Unfortunately, the precise way of proving logical propositions like these aren't standardized. For your first, you can infer A from "A and B" from a boolean elimination rule called "conjuction elimination". For your second one, I suppose you can do a proof by contradiction. Suppose A, then since A implies not A, we have A and
-
Oh...the irony of you attacking the English curriculum.
-
The Piano Guys
-
The main problem I see is that rarely does mainstream media cover anything of substance. Personally, I don't care what Congressman X tweeted about Obama, or the godawful "political analysis" done by airheaded "political commentators." But the point of mass media is to divert the public's attention away from issues that matter
-
It seems like the OP doesn't even understand the difference between supply and quantity supplied.
-
I don't see what the big deal is. If there is an improvement in technology in the production of computers, then all else held constant , supply will most definitely increase.
-
It didn't say that, but in microecon 101, "increase in productivity", "improvement in technology, "lowering of input costs" are all code words for increase in supply.