1/27/06
Not all logicians, and logical texts, use the same symbols for the logical connectives. Here are some common alternatives.
[We will face a little problem here. It is tricky enough to get the browsers to display our symbols, let alone many others. So it may well be that the symbols that are shown here do not display properly on your browser.]
'not' : ∼ (the 'tilde'), ¬ (looks like the top right corner of a box)
'and': ∧,& (the ampersand), . (just a period)
'or': ∨ (usually just this, vel)
'implication': ⊃ , →
'equivalence': ≡, ↔
'existential quantifier': ∃, ∑
'universal quantifier':∀, ∏
'therefore': ∴, ⊦ (this 'assertion' symbols actually means something slightly different, but often appears in this context)
So, in a logic book, you might see (A&B)→C and that is just the same as our (A∧B)⊃C.
These logical symbols do have html codes , and here is what they are
'not' : ∼ (the 'tilde'), ¬ (looks like the top right corner of a box)
'and': ∧,& (the ampersand), . (just a period)
'or': ∨ (usually just this, vel)
'implication': ⊃ , →
'equivalence': ≡, ↔
'existential quantifier': ∃, ∑
'universal quantifier':∀, &all; ∏
'therefore': ∴, ⊦ (this 'assertion' symbols actually means something slightly different, but often appears in this context)
So, if you know about html, can use an html editor etc., if, for example, you insert into the html of a web page '∴' you will get (if your browser can do it) ∴