Logic of quantified statements: for all vs if then

  • Thread starter jreelawg
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Logic
In summary, the conversation discusses the use of "for all" and "there exists" in translating ordinary speech into precise mathematical statements. The speaker expresses their opinion that "for all" is an ambiguous expression and that "if" statements in mathematics are often intended to have universal truth. They also mention the concept of statement functions and the difference between a statement and a statement function. The speaker then provides an example of how quantifiers can be used to create statements. The conversation also touches on the topic of the converse of a theorem and how it applies to if-statements. Finally, there is a typo in one of the given statements that is corrected to show the equivalence between the two statements.
  • #1
jreelawg
126
0
Statement 1: If n is any prime number > 2, then n+1 is even.
Statement 2: For all prime numbers p, if p>2, then p is even.

The above two statements seam equivalent, but have different converses, etc.

converse 1: If n+1 is even, then n is a prime number > 2.
converse 2: For all prime numbers p, if p+1 is even, then p > 2.

If you have a statement that begins with if, is it illegal to write as a for all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you have a statement that begins with if, is it illegal to write as a for all?

This is a question about translating ordinary speech into precise mathematical statements. There aren't any rigid rules for doing this and people's opinions about using "for all" may vary.

In my opinion "for all" is an ambiguous expression. For example if we say "For all real numbers m, there exists a real number k such that k > m" this could be interpreted as the (incorrect) assertion that there is a largest real number, one that is greater than all real numbers. It is clearer to say "For each real number m, there exists a real number k such that k > m", unless you are actually intend to convey a different meaning.

In mathematics it is often true that an if-statement is intended to have some universal truth. For example, if the statement is made that "If a > b then a + c > a + c", there are a lot things that are "understood" about the meaning of that statement. One possible interpretation of that statement is: "For each real number a and for each real number b and for each real number c, if a > b then a + c > a + b."

However, strictly speaking, an if-statement need not be any sort of universal claim. An expression which has variables in it, but no quantifiers for the variables ( i.e. no "for each" or "there exists") is technically not a "statement", it is a "statement function". A "statement" must be true or false. A statement function is only true or false when specific values are substituted for the variables.

So, strictly speaking, "if p > q then r > s" is not a statement. You can't say if it is true or false.

When we quantify the variables in various ways, we get statements. One example is:

"For each p, there exists a q such that for each r, there exists an s such that if p > q then r > s".

I find that statement confusing to interpret! However, it demonstrates how the quantifiers "for each" and "there exists" can be employed.

If we fix the typo "then p is even" to be "then p+1 is even", the statements you gave are both equivalent to "For each integer p, if p is a prime and p > 2 then p+1 is even".

Talking about the "converse" is a tricky matter. Strictly speaking, "converse" is a term that applies to if-statements. I don't know whether logicians apply it to "if-statement functions". Ordinary mathematicians do talk about the converse of theorems. What they would mean in your example is the statement "For each integer p, if p+1 is even then p is a prime and p > 2". So they wouldn't be worried about whether the "p+1 is even" implied that p was an integer.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Stephen Tashi said:
This is a question about translating ordinary speech into precise mathematical statements. There aren't any rigid rules for doing this and people's opinions about using "for all" may vary.

In my opinion "for all" is an ambiguous expression. For example if we say "For all real numbers m, there exists a real number k such that k > m" this could be interpreted as the (incorrect) assertion that there is a largest real number, one that is greater than all real numbers. It is clearer to say "For each real number m, there exists a real number k such that k > m", unless you are actually intend to convey a different meaning.

In mathematics it is often true that an if-statement is intended to have some universal truth. For example, if the statement is made that "If a > b then a + c > a + c", there are a lot things that are "understood" about the meaning of that statement. One possible interpretation of that statement is: "For each real number a and for each real number b and for each real number c, if a > b then a + c > a + b."

However, strictly speaking, an if-statement need not be any sort of universal claim. An expression which has variables in it, but no quantifiers for the variables ( i.e. no "for each" or "there exists") is technically not a "statement", it is a "statement function". A "statement" must be true or false. A statement function is only true or false when specific values are substituted for the variables.

So, strictly speaking, "if p > q then r > s" is not a statement. You can't say if it is true or false.

When we quantify the variables in various ways, we get statements. One example is:

"For each p, there exists a q such that for each r, there exists an s such that if p > q then r > s".

I find that statement confusing to interpret! However, it demonstrates how the quantifiers "for each" and "there exists" an be employed.

The statements you gave are both equivalent to "For each integer p, if p is a prime and p > 2 then p is odd".

Talking about the "converse" is a tricky matter. Strictly speaking, "converse" is a term that applies to if-statements. I don't know whether logicians apply it to "if-statement functions". Ordinary mathematicians do talk about the converse of theorems. What they would mean in your example is the statement "For each integer p, if p+1 is odd then p is a prime and p > 2". So they wouldn't be worried about whether the "p +1 is odd" implied that p was an integer.
My book has a problem in it:

For each of the true statements, show that their converses are false.

...

"If n is any prime number greater than 2, then p+1 is even."

My reaction was that the converse would be- "for all prime numbers p, if p+1 is even, then p is greater than 2."

The problem is that this converse is also true. But in the back of the book, the answer is that the converse is - "If n+1 is even, then n is a prime number greater than 2." which is false.

This made me kind of uncomfortable, so I asked my professor this morning, and it kind of threw him off too.
 
  • #4
jreelawg said:
Statement 1: If n is any prime number > 2, then n+1 is even.
Statement 2: For all prime numbers p, if p>2, then p is even.

The above two statements seam equivalent, but have different converses, etc.

converse 1: If n+1 is even, then n is a prime number > 2.
converse 2: For all prime numbers p, if p+1 is even, then p > 2.

If you have a statement that begins with if, is it illegal to write as a for all?

Well, for "converse" 1, it's certainly not the case that if n+1 is even, then n is a prime number > 2. The correct converse of your original statement 1 is: If n+1 is even, then n is any prime number > 2 (which is not true either).

In general Q implies P does not follow from P implies Q.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
SW VandeCarr said:
Well, for "converse" 1, it's certainly not the case that if n+1 is even, then n is a prime number > 2. The correct converse of your original statement 1 is: If n+1 is even, then n is any prime number > 2 which is not true either.

In general Q implies P does not follow from P implies Q.

Yes the exercise was to show that the converse of statement 1 is false.

I thought about wether the converse should be n is any prime number, but decided it didn't make sense for something to be any number. I would say maybe is an element of the set of all prime numbers. I guess to say it is any element of the set of prime numbers just sounds strange. The word is implies that it is a specific number.

And the books answer uses the form "is a prime number".

My problem is that which converse is correct seams inconsistent depending on how you interpret or format a statement, and who you ask.

Also the book considers that the negation of a for all (universal statement) is the existential, some are, or at least one is. But it seams like the two options for negating a for all, are not equivalent. The difference seams to be >= 1 vs >1.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
jreelawg said:
"If n is any prime number greater than 2, then p+1 is even."

Let's make it "If p is any prime number..."

My reaction was that the converse would be- "for all prime numbers p, if p+1 is even, then p is greater than 2."

If we define the statement functions:

P(x) to mean "x is a prime number"
E(x) to mean "x is even"
G(x) to mean "x is greater than 2"

then we can consider the following statements:

Statement 1: For each x, if ( P(x) and E(x)) then G(x).
Statement 2: For each x, if P(x) then (if E(x) then G(x)).

I think the statements are logically equivalent. However if you look at statement 2, you can see why "converse" may not be a well-defined concept for expressions with statement -functions. Do we reverse the sides of both the if-then expressions? Do we reverse the sides of one of them and not the other?

"Converse" is unambiguous when applied to expressions of the form

if (Statement A) then (Statement B)

However, when applied to expressions like

For each x, if ( statement function A) then (statement function B)

things can become unclear since the statement functions themselves may have other if-statement functions inside them.


I think what you did was convert statement 1 into statement 2 and then you applied one possible definition of "converse" to statement 2. Given that you did that, some confusion is appropriate.
 
  • #7
Stephen Tashi said:
Let's make it "If p is any prime number..."
If we define the statement functions:

P(x) to mean "x is a prime number"
E(x) to mean "x is even"
G(x) to mean "x is greater than 2"

then we can consider the following statements:

Statement 1: For each x, if ( P(x) and E(x)) then G(x).
Statement 2: For each x, if P(x) then (if E(x) then G(x)).

I think the statements are logically equivalent. However if you look at statement 2, you can see why "converse" may not be a well-defined concept for expressions with statement -functions. Do we reverse the sides of both the if-then expressions? Do we reverse the sides of one of them and not the other?

"Converse" is unambiguous when applied to expressions of the form

if (Statement A) then (Statement B)

However, when applied to expressions like

For each x, if ( statement function A) then (statement function B)

things can become unclear since the statement functions themselves may have other if-statement functions inside them.I think what you did was convert statement 1 into statement 2 and then you applied one possible definition of "converse" to statement 2. Given that you did that, some confusion is appropriate.

That makes sense, although I'm still uncomfortable with the level of ambiguity. Part of why this was so confusing, is that some of the exercises in the section prior to this one, involved converting verbal statements into formal statements using only symbols, and it seamed as though we were expected to put everything in the form of either (for all), or a (there exists) form.
 

1. What is the difference between "for all" and "if then" in logic of quantified statements?

In logic of quantified statements, "for all" refers to a universal quantifier, which states that a statement applies to every element in a specific domain. "If then" refers to a conditional statement, which states that if one statement is true, then another statement must also be true.

2. How do you represent "for all" and "if then" statements in logic?

"For all" statements can be represented using the universal quantifier symbol (∀), followed by the variable and the domain. "If then" statements can be represented using the conditional symbol (→), with the antecedent (if) and consequent (then) statements on either side.

3. What is the difference between a universal statement and a conditional statement?

A universal statement, denoted by "for all", makes a claim about every element in a specific domain. A conditional statement, denoted by "if then", makes a claim about the relationship between two statements, where the truth of one statement depends on the truth of the other.

4. Can "for all" and "if then" be used interchangeably in logic of quantified statements?

No, "for all" and "if then" have different meanings and cannot be used interchangeably in logic of quantified statements. "For all" statements make claims about all elements in a domain, while "if then" statements make conditional claims about the relationship between two statements.

5. How do you determine the truth value of a "for all" or "if then" statement?

The truth value of a "for all" statement is determined by checking if the statement holds true for every element in the specified domain. The truth value of an "if then" statement is determined by checking if the antecedent is true and if the consequent must also be true based on the logical relationship between the two statements.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
16
Views
263
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
780
Replies
0
Views
262
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
897
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
855
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top