```Homework #9

1.  Show that if a language L and its complement are both recursively
enumerable,  then L is recursive.

2.  Translate the following sentences into first-order predicate calculus,
drawing symbols from the following lists:

Predicates			Variables		Constants
shorter(2 parms)		   x,y,p1,p2,t1,t2	   You,Walt,Wanda,Larry
taller(2 parms)
person(1 parm)
equal(2 parms)
look_alike(2 parms)
people(1 parm)
time(1 parm)
can_fool_at_time(3 parms)

a) Walt is shorter than Wanda.
b) There is no one taller than Larry.
c) No two people look alike.
d) You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

3.  Use truth tables to show that the following sentences are valid and thus
that the equivalences hold.

a) P ^ (Q ^ R)  <=>  (P ^ Q) ^ R
b) P ^ (Q v R)  <=>  (P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)
c) P <=> Q  <=>  (P ^ Q) v (-P ^ -Q)

4.  Look at the following sentences and decide for each if it is valid,
unsatisfiable, or satisfiable.  Verify with truth tables or using
rules given in class.

a) Smoke => Smoke
b) Smoke => Fire
c) ((Smoke ^ Heat) => Fire) <=> ((Smoke => Fire) | (Heat => Fire))

5.  Jones, Smith, and Clark hold the jobs of programmer, software engineer,
and manager (not necessarily in that order).  Jones owes the programmer
\$10.  The manager's spouse prohibits borrowing money.  Smith is not
married.  Your task is to figure out which person has which job
using the equivalence rules and inference rules given in class.

Represent all of the facts in propositional logic.  You should have nine
propositional symbols throughout the entire proof, one to represent each
possible person/job assignment.  You do not need to represent the
relation between owing and borrowing, or between being married and having
a spouse; you can just use these to draw conclusions (e.g., from "Smith"
is not married" and "the manager's spouse" we know that Smith cannot be
the manager, or -SM).  A solution will be a conjunction of the form
JP ^ SK ^ CM.  Justify every conclusion you draw.
```