IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23

by

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23 , BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free : BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 , IGNOU BPY 002 Assignment 2022-23, BPY 002 Assignment 2022-23 , BPY 002 Assignment , BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free IGNOU Assignments 2022-23- BACHELOR OF ARTS Assignment 2022-23 Gandhi National Open University had recently uploaded the assignments of the present session for BACHELOR OF ARTS Programme for the year 2022-23. IGNOU BDP stands for Bachelor’s Degree Program. Courses such as B.A., B.Com, and B.Sc comes under the BDP category. IGNOU BDP courses give students the freedom to choose any subject according to their preference.  Students are recommended to download their Assignments from this webpage itself. Study of Political Science is very important for every person because it is interrelated with the society and the molar values in today culture and society. IGNOU solved assignment 2022-23 ignou dece solved assignment 2022-23, ignou ma sociology assignment 2022-23 meg 10 solved assignment 2022-23 ts 6 solved assignment 2022-23 , meg solved assignment 2022-23 .

Contents

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23

We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done – 8130208920

Important Note – IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023  Download Free You may be aware that you need to submit your assignments before you can appear for the Term End Exams. Please remember to keep a copy of your completed assignment, just in case the one you submitted is lost in transit.

Download Question Paper 

Submission Date :

  • 31st March 2033 (if enrolled in the July 2033 Session)
  • 30th Sept, 2033 (if enrolled in the January 2033 session).

1. Give Answer of all five questions.
2. All five questions carry equal marks
3. Answer to question no. 1 and 2 should be in about 400 words each.
4. If any question has more than one part, please attempt all parts.

1. What is definition? Explain different kinds of definitions. Briefly explain the limit to
define something.

Or

Discuss,

a) Differentiate between inductive and deductive reasoning.
b) Relation between truth and validity in deductive logic.

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols). Definitions can be classified into two large categories: intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term), and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes). Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.

In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, by describing a condition which unambiguously qualifies what a mathematical term is and is not. Definitions and axioms form the basis on which all of modern mathematics is to be constructed.

Basic terminology

In modern usage, a definition is something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words. The word or group of words that is to be defined is called the definiendum, and the word, group of words, or action that defines it is called the definienS. For example, in the definition “An elephant is a large gray animal native to Asia and Africa”, the word “elephant” is the definiendum, and everything after the word “is” is the definiens.

The definiens is not the meaning of the word defined, but is instead something that conveys the same meaning as that word.

There are many sub-types of definitions, often specific to a given field of knowledge or study. These include, among many others, lexical definitions, or the common dictionary definitions of words already in a language; demonstrative definitions, which define something by pointing to an example of it (“This,” [said while pointing to a large grey animal], “is an Asian elephant.”); and precising definitions, which reduce the vagueness of a word, typically in some special sense (“‘Large’, among female Asian elephants, is any individual weighing over 5,500 pounds.”).

Intensional definitions vs extensional definitions

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a member of a specific set. Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional definition.

An extensional definition, also called a denotative definition, of a concept or term specifies its extension. It is a list naming every object that is a member of a specific set.

Thus, the “seven deadly sins” can be defined intensionally as those singled out by Pope Gregory I as particularly destructive of the life of grace and charity within a person, thus creating the threat of eternal damnation. An extensional definition, on the other hand, would be the list of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. In contrast, while an intensional definition of “Prime Minister” might be “the most senior minister of a cabinet in the executive branch of parliamentary government”, an extensional definition is not possible since it is not known who the future prime ministers will be (even though all prime ministers from the past and present can be listed).

The concept of the limits and continuity is one of the most important terms to understand to do calculus. A limit is stated as a number that a function reaches as the independent variable of the function reaches a given value. For example, consider a function f(x) = 4x, we can define this as,The limit of f(x) as x reaches close by 2 is 8.

Mathematically, It is represented as

limx→2f(x)=8limx→2f(x)=8

A function is determined as a continuous at a specific point if the following three conditions are met.

    • f(k)  is defined.

limx→kf(x)limx→kf(x)

  • exists.
  • \[\lim_{x\rightarrow k^{+}} f(x) = \lim_{x\rightarrow k^{-}} f(x) = f(k).

A function will only be determined as continuity of a function if its graph can be drawn without lifting the pen from the paper. But a function is defined as discontinuous when it has any gap in between.

2. What is quantification? Write a note on the quantification rules.

Or

What is a dilemma? How can we avoid dilemma?

Quantification, in logic, the attachment of signs of quantity to the predicate or subject of a proposition. The universal quantifier, symbolized by (∀-) or (-), where the blank is filled by a variable, is used to express that the formula following holds for all values of the particular variable quantified. The existential quantifier, symbolized (∃-), expresses that the formula following holds for some (at least one) value of that quantified variable.

Quantifiers of different types may be combined. For example, restricting epsilon (ε) and delta (δ) to positive values, b is called the limit of a function f(x) as x approaches a if for every ε there exists a δ such that whenever the distance from x to a is less than δ, then the distance from f(x) to b will be less than ε; or symbolically:Symbolic quantification.

in which vertical lines mark the enclosed quantities as absolute values, < means “is less than,” and ⊃ means “if . . . then,” or “implies.”

Variables that are quantified are called bound (or dummy) variables, and those not quantified are called free variables. Thus, in the expression above, ε and δ are bound; and x, a, b, and f are free, since none of them occurs as an argument of either ∀ or ∃. See also propositional function.

From Logic to Ontology
The interaction between pure quantificational logic and tense and modality suggests the domain of ontology is immutable and necessary. But we can only draw these conclusions by making use of some auxiliary assumptions, some of which are far from obvious. The highly counterintuitive character of the conclusions has consequently led many philosophers to place some of the auxiliary assumptions under close scrutiny. Other philosophers have followed argument where it leads, and they have sought to reconcile the eternal and necessary character of the domain of ontology with the apparent temporary and contingent character of existence. In fact, Williamson 2013 set out to provide a separate battery of arguments for the necessity and immutability of ontology.One auxiliary assumption one may question is the traditional link between quantification and existence. Even if there is no change in the domain of quantification, you may nevertheless think that existence is only temporary. Socrates did not exist either before 490 BCE or after 399 BCE, and the mere fact that he is, has and will always be something is not reason to attribute existence to him. One variant of this move is a direct descendant of Meinong’s view on existence as a mere species of being. But to the extent to which Meinongianism may be accompanied with the implausible thesis that no matter what condition we substitute for FF in “the FF is FF” gives rise to a true sentence, it would seem to entail that “the round square is a round square” is true, which seems hopeless. But the Meinongian thesis is not compulsory for more plausible developments of the view that not everything exists, even though everything is something. What is not negotiable, though, is the thesis that existence should not be taken to be expressed by a quantificational expression, but rather by a predicate which may or not apply to objects in the domain. The moral of the temporal versions of BF and CBF is only that unrestricted quantification ranges over an immutable and necessary domain of objects, whether or not they enjoy temporary and contingent existence. The difficult question remains of how to answer Quine’s question “what is there?” once one abandons the thesis that no matter what condition FF may be, there are objects that satisfy the condition. For more on different variants of Meinongianism, the reader may consult the entry on existence.There is, in the second place, the assumption that the axioms of pure quantificational logic remain true when we expand the language to include other sentential operators, whether temporal, modal or otherwise. What is perhaps the most common response to our predicament is to recoil from pure quantificational logic into a suitably weakened variant of it. This is, for example, the path taken in Kripke (1963), where Kripke proposes to weaken the axiom of universal instantiation in line with the first version of inclusive quantificational logic discussed earlier. Since ∃y x=y∃y x=y is not a theorem of inclusive quantificational logic, we are not in a position to necessitate, which blocks the derivation of the necessity of being. Kripke’s quantified modal logic is discussed in the entry on actualism.
Others have fallen back into alternative forms of free logic, but there appears to be no consensus as to which one is the best alternative to pure quantificational logic. It may be helpful to note, however, that some of the relevant free logics merely restrict the axiom of universal instantiation by means of an existence predicate and do nothing to block the derivation of other allegedly problematic principles such as the necessity of identity, which is the thesis that everything is necessarily self-identical. Since, presumably, an object can only be necessarily self-identical if it exists necessarily, opponents of CBF will also want to have some resources to block the necessity of identity.The derivability of the necessity of identity from the axioms of identity and the rule of necessitation may perhaps invite one to consider another option. Maybe the culprit is not pure quantificational logic, but rather the indiscriminate use of the rule of necessitation. The rationale for necessitation is that every provable sentence should be necessarily true, but it is not clear how this thought is supposed to generalize to open formulas, which, strictly speaking, are not true or false. Open formulas are merely true or false under an assignment of values to their free variables. But the fact that x=xx=x, for example, is true under an assignment ss on which xx is assigned a table is no reason to think that x=xx=x is necessarily true under such an assignment if you think that the table could have not been there. One problem for this strategy is that it is of little help when we allow closed terms such as constant symbols into the language of quantified modal logic. In the presence of constant symbols, classical quantificational logic allows us to derive the sentence ∃x a=x∃x a=x as a theorem, whence, by necessitation for complete sentences, we infer □∃x a=x◻∃x a=x, which seems objectionable if aa is suppose to regiment a name for an object that exists only contingently. One could avoid the problems by barring closed terms from the language, but such a radical exclusion seems ad hoc and artificial. So, if one chooses to restrict necessitation, one must provide a different rationale for it. Deutsch (1990) provides an example of this strategy.The fourth and final option to consider is to take the derivability of CBF in tense and modal logic at face value, and embrace the conclusion that existence is indeed immutable and necessary.
These are the theses that Williamson (2013) calls “permanentism” and “necessitism”. The task for each approach is to explain our initial reluctance to embrace them in the first place. Take the apparent resistance to accept the claim that Socrates will always be something despite the fact that he died in 399 BCE. The permanentist may respond that if we are initially disinclined to accept this claim, it is only because we mistakenly think that because a person, for example, is a concrete object, a past or a future person must be concrete as well. Socrates, which is a past person, was not a person either before 490 BCE or after 399 BCE; indeed, Socrates is now not a person, nor will he be one in the future. Likewise, a merely possible person need not be a person either and neither the Barcan nor the Converse Barcan Formula threaten the temporary and contingent character of concreteness. Since I could have found the time, skill and energy to build a bookcase, some object is possibly a bookcase built by me. But the necessitist will be at pains to add that to be a possible bookcase built by me is not to be a bookcase built by me, much less a bookcase. This outlook is defended by Linsky & Zalta (1994) and Williamson (2013). But there are other points of contact. For example, all versions of necessitism must reject unqualified “essentialist” theses such as the view that a person is necessarily a person; at most, one can perhaps maintain the weaker thesis that a person is necessarily if concrete, a person. Likewise, all versions of necessitism seem committed to the actual existence of many more nonsets than can form a set. Sider (2009), for example, argues that necessitism is committed to the actual existence of at least κκ nonsets for each set-theoretic cardinal κκ. And Hawthorne & Uzquiano (2011) raises other cardinality problems for a combination of necessitism with certain common mereological assumptions.

3. Answer any two of the following questions in about 200 words each. 2*10= 20

a) Write a note on the sentential connectives.

b) Write a note on the rules of inference.

c) If ‘Some economists are not musicians.’ is true. Determine the truth-value of the
followings and state the relation with the given statement.
i) All economists are musicians.
ii) Some economists are musicians.
iii) Some economists are non-musicians.
iv) No economists are musicians.
v) Some musicians are economists.

d) What are the limits of Aristotelian logic? Do you think that symbolic logic sorts out the problems of Aristotelian logic?

4. Answer any four of the following questions in about 150 words each. 4*5= 20

a) State rules of logical division.
b) Write a note on contradictory and contrary relation.
c) Differentiate between constructive and simple dilemma with examples.
d) Differentiate between Proposition and sentence.
e) Write a note on existential import.
f) Write a note on the dagger function

IGNOU Handwritten Hardcopy , WhatsApp – 8130208920

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done – 8130208920

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23

GET IGNOU Handwritten Hardcopy , WhatsApp – 8130208920

5. Write short notes on any five of the following in about 100 words each. 5*4= 20

a) Mood
b) The Stroke Function
c) Modus Tollens
d) Categorical Syllogism
e) Symbolic logic
f) Implication
g) Bi-conditional
h) Figure

Get IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Now  here from this website.

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 get here all ignou solved assignment 2022-23 , ignou guess paper , ignou help books and ignou exam related material. We help students to get their assignment done with our handwritten services, BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free you can access our all material and services through WhatsApp also , 8130208920

GET SOLVED PDF – Click Here

IGNOU Instructions for the BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free  Before attempting the assignment, please read the following instructions carefully.

  1. Read the detailed instructions about the assignment given in the Handbook and Programme Guide.
  2. Write your enrolment number, name, full address and date on the top right corner of the first page of your response sheet(s).
  3. Write the course title, assignment number and the name of the study centre you are attached to in the centre of the first page of your response sheet(s).
  4. Use only foolscap size paperfor your response and tag all the pages carefully
  5. Write the relevant question number with each answer.
  6. You should write in your own handwriting.



GUIDELINES FOR IGNOU Assignments 2022-23

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23 You will find it useful to keep the following points in mind:

  1. Planning: Read the questions carefully. IGNOU BPY 002 Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF Go through the units on which they are based. Make some points regarding each question and then rearrange these in a logical order. And please write the answers in your own words. Do not reproduce passages from the units.
  2. Organisation: Be a little more selective and analytic before drawing up a rough outline of your answer. In an essay-type question, give adequate attention to your introduction and conclusion. IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free Download PDF The introduction must offer your brief interpretation of the question and how you propose to develop it. The conclusion must summarise your response to the question. In the course of your answer, you may like to make references to other texts or critics as this will add some depth to your analysis.
  3. Presentation: IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-2023 Download Free Download PDF Once you are satisfied with your answers, you can write down the final version for submission, writing each answer neatly and underlining the points you wish to emphasize.

IGNOU Assignment Front Page

The top of the first page of your response sheet should look like this: Get IGNOU Assignment Front page through. And Attach on front page of your assignment. Students need to compulsory attach the front page in at the beginning of their handwritten assignment.

ENROLMENT NO: …………………………………………………….

NAME: ……………………………………………………………………

ADDRESS: ………………………………………………………………

COURSE TITLE: ………………………………………………………

ASSIGNMENT NO: …………………………………………………

STUDY CENTRE: …………………………………………….……..

DATE: ……………………………………………………………………



BPY 002 Handwritten Assignment 2022-23

IGNOU BPY 002 Solved Assignment 2022-23 – We provide handwritten PDF and Hardcopy to our IGNOU and other university students. BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF There are several types of handwritten assignment we provide all Over India. BPY 002 Logic : Classical and Symbolic Logic Solved Assignment 2022-23 Download Free Download PDF We are genuinely work in this field for so many time. You can get your assignment done –8130208920

Related Material Also –

  • IGNOU BPCC 104 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPYC 134 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPAC 104 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPCC 132 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BANS 183 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BHIE 142 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPSC 102 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPCC 101 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BHIC 101 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU MAN 007 Solved Assignment 2022-23
  • IGNOU BPCC 134 Solved Assignment 2022-23


BUY PDF & Handwritten

  • Solved PDF Cost – @50 rs per Paper / Subject
  • Handwritten Hardcopy – @350 rs per paper/ subject

WhatsApp – 813020892

Leave a Comment