Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Attempting to add logic mathematics to a college paper - need your input


New member
Jul 21, 2020

I am a retired Marine that has decided to pursue an undergraduate degree in programming and am currently working on paper that discusses the future of Mobile Computing. In this paper I am introducing a hypothetical process that assists in forecasting the future of mobile computing. To do this, I propose that there are three arguments that must be established as true, before we can forecast where mobile computing is heading. To complicate things, I decided to incorporate logic mathematics into this by taking each argument and writing it out in logically. Now, I have no formal education in this area and I have been trying to teach myself this for about 7 to 8 months through online self-help education. I believe that I have accomplished to write out the equation correctly, but would truely like your opinion and input regarding what I've done - prior to turning this in on Sunday afternoon (July 26).

If you could please help me correct (if necessary) what I am working on, that would be greatly appreciated. My objectives here are to properly present these steps in my paper and to further my education in logic mathematics by taking in your constructive criticism and advise. Don't worry about hurting my feelings - as a Retired Marine, I have plenty thick skin. Your advise is valuable and greatly appreciated.

First Argument. Establishing Integrated Circuits. As we know, integrated circuits can be forecast through the use of Moore’s Law (1), hence the verbally defined equation for integrated circuits is: Integrated Circuits double every two years.


Here x represents the forecast count of integrated circuits which are calculated using Moore’s Law. In Moore's Law, tcf represents the future count of transistors and tcc represents the current count of transistors.

Second Argument. Establishing Technological Miniaturization. There’s only one basic rule when it comes to technological miniaturization and that is: In order for technological miniaturization to be true, the evolution of integrated circuits has to be established.


Here Q represents technological miniaturization, only if integrated circuits can be predicted.

Third Argument. Establishing Technological Convergence. In order for technological convergence to be true, the proper computing technology (A), communication technology (B), and software platforms (C) must be established.


Here P represents technological convergence, only if the determining factors are true.

Wrapping all up together. Establishing the Logical Equation. In order to forecast mobile computing we must establish where integrated circuits will be in a future date, and by doing so, we can establish technological miniaturization and technological convergence only if the proper computing technology, communication technology, and software platforms are established.

M(n)↔((∴x=(tcf=tcc(2^(y/2) )))↔Q)∧((A→B→C)↔P)

Here M represents Mobile Computing while n represents forecasting, which can only be established only if the other elements are established as true.

This is where I am at with this project - the paper is a total of 25-pages. It defines each element in detail, hence, what is presented here is only a small snapshot of the paper. This portion is only the elements that pertain to establishing this equation.

Question. Am I on the right path - did I do this correctly?

Please let me know. Again, your input is valuable. Lastly, these equations do not have to be in this paper - this is something I believe will add value to the overall paper and illustrates that I am willing to think outside of the box.


Last edited:


Well-known member
MHB Math Scholar
Jan 30, 2012
I am sorry, but currently your formulas do not make much sense. I suggest you read about propositional logic in some textbook of mathematical logic (not logic mathematics). For example, we can introduce two propositions: $Q$ means that technological miniaturization is true, and $IC$ means that the evolution of integrated circuits happens. Then the claim that technological miniaturization requires the evolution of integrated circuits is written as $Q\to IC$ (if miniaturization happened, then integrated circuits were developed). Similarly, the third argument is written as $P\to A\land B\land C$. The formula for the first argument requires a more detailed discussion.


New member
Jul 21, 2020
I am sorry, but currently your formulas do not make much sense. I suggest you read about propositional logic in some textbook of mathematical logic (not logic mathematics).
No need to apologize - I am trying and realized that I was over my head and "thought" I might be on the right path - obviously wrong. Out of so many who have viewed my post - you replied - thank you so much. I will follow through with your recommendations. Evgeny - Thank you!