Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, member, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
11,492
edits
Changes
The logic of classical language/es (view source)
Revision as of 19:50, 1 November 2021
, 3 years agoCreated page with "significa que todos los pacientes que dan positivo en el TAC de la ATM tienen TTM, pero aunque Mary Poppins dé positivo en el TAC de la ATM, no tiene TTM"
<math>\{a \not\in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \and A( a)\rightarrow \urcorner B(a) \}</math>. <math>(3)</math>
<math>\{a \not\in x \mid \forall \text{x} \; A(\text{x}) \rightarrow {B}(\text{x}) \and A( a)\rightarrow \urcorner B(a) \}</math>. <math>(3)</math>
"<math>(3)</math>" means that every patient who is TMJ CT positive has TMDs but even though Mary Poppins is TMJ CT positive, she does not have TMDs.
"<math>(3)</math>" significa que todos los pacientes que dan positivo en el TAC de la ATM tienen TTM, pero aunque Mary Poppins dé positivo en el TAC de la ATM, no tiene TTM.
In order to prove that this proposition is true, we must use once again the above mentioned <u>demonstration by absurdity</u>. If its denial creates a contradiction, surely the neurologist's proposition will be true:
In order to prove that this proposition is true, we must use once again the above mentioned <u>demonstration by absurdity</u>. If its denial creates a contradiction, surely the neurologist's proposition will be true: