The terms no. and no. don’t mean the same thing in general.

Is there any other answer using logic?

A lot of answers are attempting to apply propositional logic to the analysis of these statements, however the problem is that ‘belief’ is not an expressible concept in plain propositional logic, you cannot qualify a proposition over a proposition. So if you have the proposition x == y on one hand, then try to modify said proposition with the belief quantifier, problem is that propositional logic alone cannot express such a thing and be both coherent (only true things are proveable) and complete (all true things can be proven) What do you think of as being true? No grammar for a sentence.

Revision of the classic logic in formal methods is often done using quantifiers over propositions, a few examples are useful. A matrix of quantifiers can be extended. For all x, X is true. X, read as This is very useful in math, where you want to prove some statement about all natural numbers. I don’t understand any natural language statement. Rather, I just want to understand what people say.

A sufficient sense of logic to examine such statements is Modal Logicwhich extends propositional logic with an explicit notion of belief. What are the modal logics for this process that add two symbols to the which is read as “It is necessary that or i belive that” and

which is

“it is possible that” so you have x u00ad y ( I believe that x y) (x = y) (I don’t believe x equals y) which can be rewritten (x y) and by the modal logic reduction this is

Whether x and y are actually equal, whether that is even decidable, or whether the truth even depends on the context or time of day is not relevant to analyzing the statements about belief like this.

Modal logic is handy stuff, another common place it can be used in distributed learning systems with different nodes working with incomplete information such as cooperating robots as it actually can express things like Agent1 believes that things agent2 tells him are possible. Is it possible to take subjective view of the world on which different agents believe and come to different conclusions or for reasoning about possible alternate worlds? ” How do we explain an expressible statement (which is true or not) in logic? No ability to explain it. Does Bigfoot exist? If so, then how can we express this in modal logic, whereas classically it is not possible to say something is true because it doesn’t actually happen in our mind?

By interpeting the two quantifiers (,), you find a lot of logical systems are just specializations of modal logic. Temporal logic is when you interpret them as saying whether a statement is sometimes true, or always true, denotic logic is when you interpet them as “you must” and “you may” Epistemic logic treats them as “you know that x is true”, and “nothing contradicts x being true.” What is fun stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/index.php. org/wiki/Modal_logic-org/wiki/Modal_logic-org/wiki/Modal_logic-org/wiki/Modal_logic-org/wiki/Admin_content.html