What is the proper way to read predicate logic? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraIs identity included in the “key” in predicate logic?What is a formal definition of “predicate logic”?predicate logic truth valuePredicate logic, linear relationWhat is a predicate exactly in predicate logic?Predicate logic example..Predicate Logic - Simple explanation neededHow to efficiently read a predicate logic formula (best practices)Question on proving validity in predicate logicpredicate logic statements, discrete math
Sort list of array linked objects by keys and values
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate
Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?
Can the DM override racial traits?
"is" operation returns false even though two objects have same id
Circular reasoning in L'Hopital's rule
1960s short story making fun of James Bond-style spy fiction
What force causes entropy to increase?
Can I visit the Trinity College (Cambridge) library and see some of their rare books
Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?
University's motivation for having tenure-track positions
Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached
What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?
Student Loan from years ago pops up and is taking my salary
Variable with quotation marks "$()"
Word for: a synonym with a positive connotation?
should truth entail possible truth
Make it rain characters
Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?
Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?
What is the role of 'For' here?
Drawing arrows from one table cell reference to another
What is the proper way to read predicate logic?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraIs identity included in the “key” in predicate logic?What is a formal definition of “predicate logic”?predicate logic truth valuePredicate logic, linear relationWhat is a predicate exactly in predicate logic?Predicate logic example..Predicate Logic - Simple explanation neededHow to efficiently read a predicate logic formula (best practices)Question on proving validity in predicate logicpredicate logic statements, discrete math
$begingroup$
Basically, in predicate logic, do we read from the inside outwards? In the example question, would 1a) be read as "For all values of y, there exists a value of x which divides y"? I've been told different things from different lecturers and online, I'm not quite sure what to do.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Any help is appreciated! Thanks
example question
logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Basically, in predicate logic, do we read from the inside outwards? In the example question, would 1a) be read as "For all values of y, there exists a value of x which divides y"? I've been told different things from different lecturers and online, I'm not quite sure what to do.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Any help is appreciated! Thanks
example question
logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Basically, in predicate logic, do we read from the inside outwards? In the example question, would 1a) be read as "For all values of y, there exists a value of x which divides y"? I've been told different things from different lecturers and online, I'm not quite sure what to do.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Any help is appreciated! Thanks
example question
logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
Basically, in predicate logic, do we read from the inside outwards? In the example question, would 1a) be read as "For all values of y, there exists a value of x which divides y"? I've been told different things from different lecturers and online, I'm not quite sure what to do.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Any help is appreciated! Thanks
example question
logic predicate-logic logic-translation
logic predicate-logic logic-translation
edited Mar 31 at 15:51
Henno Brandsma
116k349127
116k349127
asked Mar 31 at 8:20
sabsab
61
61
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Formulas in propositional and predicate logic are defined recursively. You can decompose them into terms and logical connectives by writing them as a Beth tree.
To answer your question, we read from left to right, but due to the recursive definition things can get a bit messy when conjunctions/disjunctions are involved (which is not the case in your examples). In your case 1c, we start from the left, so there is some $y$ (we fix this in the back of our mind). Now we are given any $x$ (this is the $forall x$ part). In particular, $y + 1$ could be chosen for $x$. But it's clear that $P(y+1,y)$ is false for all positive integers. Hence the sentence is false.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Yes. As an aid, think of $exists$ as "I pick a specific number" and $forall$ as "You give me any number you like". Then $exists y forall x P(x,y)$ turns into "I pick some $x$, you give me any $y$ you like, and $x$ divides $y$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You read neither from inside to outside or vice versa. Rather, you have to understand how to parse the syntax first. "$∀x ( P(x) )$" means "for every $x$ it is true that $P(x)$", where $P(x)$ can be any sentence about $x$, which may include its own quantifiers. The outer brackets are there to show you what the quantifier "$∀x$" governs. If you're just starting out, you should always write the brackets. For example, think carefully what "$∀x ( ∀y ( x=y ∨ ¬∃z( x=z ∧ y=z ) ) )$" means, based on what I said about the brackets.
It is necessary for you to first understand what the quantifier syntax I described above means, before you move on to other syntax like the one in your question. The reason is that the underlying structure is the same; you must be able to identify exactly what each quantifier governs. Consider why we can omit some brackets in the above example. "$x=z ∧ y=z$" actually means "$(x=z) ∧ (y=z)$", but why? It's because we stipulate some precedence rules, namely that we 'evaluate' operations with higher precedence first before those with lower precedence. Conventionally, the precedence rules for boolean operations and equality is:
(highest to lowest) $=,¬,∧,∨,⇒$.
Similarly we could include precedence rules for quantifiers, but I personally don't recommend dropping any brackets except for "$∀x ∃y ( P(x,y) )$" meaning "$∀x ( ∃y( P(x,y) ) )$". But for the sake of reading what others write, the precedence rule typically is that each quantifier governs the shortest possible part following it, so the last example becomes just "$∀x ∃y P(x,y)$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169162%2fwhat-is-the-proper-way-to-read-predicate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Formulas in propositional and predicate logic are defined recursively. You can decompose them into terms and logical connectives by writing them as a Beth tree.
To answer your question, we read from left to right, but due to the recursive definition things can get a bit messy when conjunctions/disjunctions are involved (which is not the case in your examples). In your case 1c, we start from the left, so there is some $y$ (we fix this in the back of our mind). Now we are given any $x$ (this is the $forall x$ part). In particular, $y + 1$ could be chosen for $x$. But it's clear that $P(y+1,y)$ is false for all positive integers. Hence the sentence is false.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Yes. As an aid, think of $exists$ as "I pick a specific number" and $forall$ as "You give me any number you like". Then $exists y forall x P(x,y)$ turns into "I pick some $x$, you give me any $y$ you like, and $x$ divides $y$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Formulas in propositional and predicate logic are defined recursively. You can decompose them into terms and logical connectives by writing them as a Beth tree.
To answer your question, we read from left to right, but due to the recursive definition things can get a bit messy when conjunctions/disjunctions are involved (which is not the case in your examples). In your case 1c, we start from the left, so there is some $y$ (we fix this in the back of our mind). Now we are given any $x$ (this is the $forall x$ part). In particular, $y + 1$ could be chosen for $x$. But it's clear that $P(y+1,y)$ is false for all positive integers. Hence the sentence is false.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Yes. As an aid, think of $exists$ as "I pick a specific number" and $forall$ as "You give me any number you like". Then $exists y forall x P(x,y)$ turns into "I pick some $x$, you give me any $y$ you like, and $x$ divides $y$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Formulas in propositional and predicate logic are defined recursively. You can decompose them into terms and logical connectives by writing them as a Beth tree.
To answer your question, we read from left to right, but due to the recursive definition things can get a bit messy when conjunctions/disjunctions are involved (which is not the case in your examples). In your case 1c, we start from the left, so there is some $y$ (we fix this in the back of our mind). Now we are given any $x$ (this is the $forall x$ part). In particular, $y + 1$ could be chosen for $x$. But it's clear that $P(y+1,y)$ is false for all positive integers. Hence the sentence is false.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Yes. As an aid, think of $exists$ as "I pick a specific number" and $forall$ as "You give me any number you like". Then $exists y forall x P(x,y)$ turns into "I pick some $x$, you give me any $y$ you like, and $x$ divides $y$".
$endgroup$
Formulas in propositional and predicate logic are defined recursively. You can decompose them into terms and logical connectives by writing them as a Beth tree.
To answer your question, we read from left to right, but due to the recursive definition things can get a bit messy when conjunctions/disjunctions are involved (which is not the case in your examples). In your case 1c, we start from the left, so there is some $y$ (we fix this in the back of our mind). Now we are given any $x$ (this is the $forall x$ part). In particular, $y + 1$ could be chosen for $x$. But it's clear that $P(y+1,y)$ is false for all positive integers. Hence the sentence is false.
For example, would 1c) be "For some values of y, every value of x divides into it" (and hence is false)
Yes. As an aid, think of $exists$ as "I pick a specific number" and $forall$ as "You give me any number you like". Then $exists y forall x P(x,y)$ turns into "I pick some $x$, you give me any $y$ you like, and $x$ divides $y$".
answered Mar 31 at 8:43
MacRanceMacRance
1826
1826
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You read neither from inside to outside or vice versa. Rather, you have to understand how to parse the syntax first. "$∀x ( P(x) )$" means "for every $x$ it is true that $P(x)$", where $P(x)$ can be any sentence about $x$, which may include its own quantifiers. The outer brackets are there to show you what the quantifier "$∀x$" governs. If you're just starting out, you should always write the brackets. For example, think carefully what "$∀x ( ∀y ( x=y ∨ ¬∃z( x=z ∧ y=z ) ) )$" means, based on what I said about the brackets.
It is necessary for you to first understand what the quantifier syntax I described above means, before you move on to other syntax like the one in your question. The reason is that the underlying structure is the same; you must be able to identify exactly what each quantifier governs. Consider why we can omit some brackets in the above example. "$x=z ∧ y=z$" actually means "$(x=z) ∧ (y=z)$", but why? It's because we stipulate some precedence rules, namely that we 'evaluate' operations with higher precedence first before those with lower precedence. Conventionally, the precedence rules for boolean operations and equality is:
(highest to lowest) $=,¬,∧,∨,⇒$.
Similarly we could include precedence rules for quantifiers, but I personally don't recommend dropping any brackets except for "$∀x ∃y ( P(x,y) )$" meaning "$∀x ( ∃y( P(x,y) ) )$". But for the sake of reading what others write, the precedence rule typically is that each quantifier governs the shortest possible part following it, so the last example becomes just "$∀x ∃y P(x,y)$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You read neither from inside to outside or vice versa. Rather, you have to understand how to parse the syntax first. "$∀x ( P(x) )$" means "for every $x$ it is true that $P(x)$", where $P(x)$ can be any sentence about $x$, which may include its own quantifiers. The outer brackets are there to show you what the quantifier "$∀x$" governs. If you're just starting out, you should always write the brackets. For example, think carefully what "$∀x ( ∀y ( x=y ∨ ¬∃z( x=z ∧ y=z ) ) )$" means, based on what I said about the brackets.
It is necessary for you to first understand what the quantifier syntax I described above means, before you move on to other syntax like the one in your question. The reason is that the underlying structure is the same; you must be able to identify exactly what each quantifier governs. Consider why we can omit some brackets in the above example. "$x=z ∧ y=z$" actually means "$(x=z) ∧ (y=z)$", but why? It's because we stipulate some precedence rules, namely that we 'evaluate' operations with higher precedence first before those with lower precedence. Conventionally, the precedence rules for boolean operations and equality is:
(highest to lowest) $=,¬,∧,∨,⇒$.
Similarly we could include precedence rules for quantifiers, but I personally don't recommend dropping any brackets except for "$∀x ∃y ( P(x,y) )$" meaning "$∀x ( ∃y( P(x,y) ) )$". But for the sake of reading what others write, the precedence rule typically is that each quantifier governs the shortest possible part following it, so the last example becomes just "$∀x ∃y P(x,y)$".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You read neither from inside to outside or vice versa. Rather, you have to understand how to parse the syntax first. "$∀x ( P(x) )$" means "for every $x$ it is true that $P(x)$", where $P(x)$ can be any sentence about $x$, which may include its own quantifiers. The outer brackets are there to show you what the quantifier "$∀x$" governs. If you're just starting out, you should always write the brackets. For example, think carefully what "$∀x ( ∀y ( x=y ∨ ¬∃z( x=z ∧ y=z ) ) )$" means, based on what I said about the brackets.
It is necessary for you to first understand what the quantifier syntax I described above means, before you move on to other syntax like the one in your question. The reason is that the underlying structure is the same; you must be able to identify exactly what each quantifier governs. Consider why we can omit some brackets in the above example. "$x=z ∧ y=z$" actually means "$(x=z) ∧ (y=z)$", but why? It's because we stipulate some precedence rules, namely that we 'evaluate' operations with higher precedence first before those with lower precedence. Conventionally, the precedence rules for boolean operations and equality is:
(highest to lowest) $=,¬,∧,∨,⇒$.
Similarly we could include precedence rules for quantifiers, but I personally don't recommend dropping any brackets except for "$∀x ∃y ( P(x,y) )$" meaning "$∀x ( ∃y( P(x,y) ) )$". But for the sake of reading what others write, the precedence rule typically is that each quantifier governs the shortest possible part following it, so the last example becomes just "$∀x ∃y P(x,y)$".
$endgroup$
You read neither from inside to outside or vice versa. Rather, you have to understand how to parse the syntax first. "$∀x ( P(x) )$" means "for every $x$ it is true that $P(x)$", where $P(x)$ can be any sentence about $x$, which may include its own quantifiers. The outer brackets are there to show you what the quantifier "$∀x$" governs. If you're just starting out, you should always write the brackets. For example, think carefully what "$∀x ( ∀y ( x=y ∨ ¬∃z( x=z ∧ y=z ) ) )$" means, based on what I said about the brackets.
It is necessary for you to first understand what the quantifier syntax I described above means, before you move on to other syntax like the one in your question. The reason is that the underlying structure is the same; you must be able to identify exactly what each quantifier governs. Consider why we can omit some brackets in the above example. "$x=z ∧ y=z$" actually means "$(x=z) ∧ (y=z)$", but why? It's because we stipulate some precedence rules, namely that we 'evaluate' operations with higher precedence first before those with lower precedence. Conventionally, the precedence rules for boolean operations and equality is:
(highest to lowest) $=,¬,∧,∨,⇒$.
Similarly we could include precedence rules for quantifiers, but I personally don't recommend dropping any brackets except for "$∀x ∃y ( P(x,y) )$" meaning "$∀x ( ∃y( P(x,y) ) )$". But for the sake of reading what others write, the precedence rule typically is that each quantifier governs the shortest possible part following it, so the last example becomes just "$∀x ∃y P(x,y)$".
answered Mar 31 at 10:33
user21820user21820
40.1k544162
40.1k544162
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169162%2fwhat-is-the-proper-way-to-read-predicate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
"There is an $y$ such that, for every $x$, ($x$ divides $y$)". In other words : is it true that there is a number (call it $y$) that is divided by every number ?
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 31 at 8:31