Discrete Mathematics


Q211.

Let a_{n} represent the number of bit strings of length n containing two consecutive 1s. What is the recurrence relation for a_{n}?
GateOverflow

Q212.

Let p, q, and r be propositions and the expression (p\rightarrowq)\rightarrowr be a contradiction. Then, the expression (r\rightarrowp)\rightarrowq is
GateOverflow

Q213.

The CORECT formula for the sentence, "not all rainy days are cold" is
GateOverflow

Q214.

Which one of the following options is CORRECT given three positive integers x, y and z, and a predicate P(x)=\neg (x=1)\wedge \forall y(\exists z(x=y*z))\Rightarrow (y=x)\vee (y=1)
GateOverflow

Q215.

Consider the following logical inferences. I1: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played. The cricket match was played. Inference: There was no rain. I2: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played. It did not rain. Inference: The cricket match was played. Which of the following is TRUE?
GateOverflow

Q216.

Suppose the predicate F(x,y,t) is used to represent the statement that person x can fool person y at time t. which one of the statements below expresses best the meaning of the formula \forall x \exists y \exists t(\neg F (x, y, t))?
GateOverflow

Q217.

Which one of the following is the most appropriate logical formula to represent the statement? "Gold and silver ornaments are precious". The following notations are used: G(x): x is a gold ornament S(x): x is a silver ornament P(x): x is precious
GateOverflow

Q218.

Which of the following is the negation of [\forall x, \alpha \rightarrow(\exists y, \beta \rightarrow(\forall u, \exists v, y))]
GateOverflow

Q219.

Let fsa and pda be two predicates such that fsa(x) means x is a finite state automaton, and pda(y) means that y is a pushdown automaton. Let equivalent be another predicate such that equivalent (a, b) means a and b are equivalent. Which of the following first order logic statements represents the following: Each finite state automaton has an equivalent pushdown automaton
GateOverflow

Q220.

Consider the following well-formed formulae: I. \neg \forall x(P(x)) II. \neg \exists x(P(x)) III. \neg \exists x(\neg P(x)) IV. \exists x(\neg P(x)) Which of the above are equivalent?
GateOverflow