The mandatory pre-exam whinge

Note: I was inspired to write this post as a consequence of the philosopher Bertrand Russell (and I'm really not happy about it).

So there I am in my room, Monster Magnet playing as I attempt to dechiper the seemingly incomprehensible and abstract world of Logic. And then, as if I hadn't been punished enough already, I gaze across the page to find Exercise {12.2}, which says

Translate away the definite description connectives in your answers to the previous question, using Russell's analysis of definite descriptions.

At first I'm thinking that sounds okay... I'm not thinking that once I get to question 7, 8, 9 or 10. Oh, no. For instance question 7 ('The flying horse is swifter than the horse that does not fly') translates into the shorthand form of:

(Ix)(Fx & Hx, (Iy)(Hy & ~Fy, Sxy))

Notice how that's nice and succint? Now see what happens when you apply Russell's analysis to it:

(∃x)(Fx & Hx & (∀y)((Fy & Hy) > x=y) & ((∃y)(Hy & ~Fy & (∀z)((Hz & ~Fz) > y=z) & Sxy)))

Omygod! How tedious and complex! And they both say the same thing! This opens up so many opportunities for the kind of silly mistakes I am endlessly prone to making under pressurised exam conditions! Damn you Russell!