MHB Converting statements and logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter strifex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around converting the statement "Any even integer is equal to twice some other even integer" into logical symbols. The initial attempt was deemed incorrect, as the formula created did not accurately reflect the original statement's meaning. It was clarified that a formula can be true or false regardless of the truth of the original statement, and that the notation for "is even" can be expressed as "E(x)" or "∃y (x = 2y)." The importance of proper quantifier scope and the distinction between universal and existential quantifiers was emphasized. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately translating statements into logical expressions.
strifex
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello! I'm just starting out on this logic train and I'm not sure I'm grasping it correctly. I took a statement and attempted to convert it into the symbols below.

∀x∈ℤ,∃y∈ℤ,(E(x)∧E(y)) → x = 2y

The original phrase is:

Any even integer is equal to twice some other event integer.

Which I translated to:

For all x in integers, and some y in integers, if x is even and y is even, then x is 2 times y.

Am I on the even on the right track? Any help would great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

strifex said:
Any even integer is equal to twice some other event integer.
This statement is false (consider, e.g., 2), but that's OK because a statement does not need to be true to be convertible to a formula.

Note also that the precise syntax of formulas differs between different textbooks, so one may consider $$\forall x\in\mathbb{Z}\,A$$ fine, while another may require rewriting this as $$\forall x\,(x\in\mathbb{Z}\to A)$$ or something like $$\forall x\,(Z(x)\to A)$$. Also, there may be different rules of scope: some books say that the scope of quantifiers is as small as possible, so $\forall x\,A\to B$ is interpreted as $(\forall x\,A)\to B$ (in this case one has to write $\forall x\,(A\to B)$ to have the whole implication under $\forall$), while others make the scope as large as possible.

strifex said:
∀x∈ℤ,∃y∈ℤ,(E(x)∧E(y)) → x = 2y
This does not reflect the meaning of the original statement. This formula is true. Indeed, for every $x$ I can find a $y$ that is not even, for example, $y=1$. This would make $E(y)$ and $E(x)\land E(y)$ false and the implication $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true regardless of the value of $x=2y$.

There is the following rule of thumb. If one has a restriction like "$x$ is even" after a quantifier (i.e., "for all even $x$" or "there exists an even $x$"), then one separates this restriction from the rest of the formula with $\to$ after the universal quantifier and with $\land$ after the existential quantifier. That is, $\forall x\,(E(x)\to\dots)$ and $\exists x\,(E(x)\land\dots)$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

This statement is false (consider, e.g., 2), but that's OK because a statement does not need to be true to be convertible to a formula.

Note also that the precise syntax of formulas differs between different textbooks, so one may consider $$\forall x\in\mathbb{Z}\,A$$ fine, while another may require rewriting this as $$\forall x\,(x\in\mathbb{Z}\to A)$$ or something like $$\forall x\,(Z(x)\to A)$$. Also, there may be different rules of scope: some books say that the scope of quantifiers is as small as possible, so $\forall x\,A\to B$ is interpreted as $(\forall x\,A)\to B$ (in this case one has to write $\forall x\,(A\to B)$ to have the whole implication under $\forall$), while others make the scope as large as possible.

This does not reflect the meaning of the original statement. This formula is true. Indeed, for every $x$ I can find a $y$ that is not even, for example, $y=1$. This would make $E(y)$ and $E(x)\land E(y)$ false and the implication $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true regardless of the value of $x=2y$.

There is the following rule of thumb. If one has a restriction like "$x$ is even" after a quantifier (i.e., "for all even $x$" or "there exists an even $x$"), then one separates this restriction from the rest of the formula with $\to$ after the universal quantifier and with $\land$ after the existential quantifier. That is, $\forall x\,(E(x)\to\dots)$ and $\exists x\,(E(x)\land\dots)$.
Thank you for taking the time to help me! I'm still a bit confused though. The original statement states that x is an EVEN integer and y is another EVEN integer, but your examples use y =1. If you put set y to 1, then it the first part of my formula is false. I set E(x) = x is even. So for the first half to be true, both x and y must be even.
 
strifex said:
The original statement states that x is an EVEN integer and y is another EVEN integer, but your examples use y =1.
I am talking about your formula rather than the original statement, and yes, I am taking $y=1$.

strifex said:
If you put set y to 1, then it the first part of my formula is false.
Yes.

If you have a vessel filled with water, the water does not need your permission to escape through some approved hole. If there is a hole, the water will escape. Similarly, a formula $\exists x\,A$ does not accept recommendations about $x$. If there is a single $x$ that makes $A$ true, then $\exists x\,A$ is true. Now, $y=1$ makes $E(x)\land E(y)$ false; therefore, it makes $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true. Recall the truth table for $\to$, where 1 denotes truth and 0 falsehood.
\[
\begin{array}{c|c|c}
A&B&A\to B\\
\hline
0&0&1\\
\hline
0&1&1\\
\hline
1&0&0\\
\hline
1&1&1
\end{array}
\]
That's it: a single value of $y$ (regardless of $x$) makes $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true; therefore, $\exists x\,(E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y)$ is true for all $x$; therefore, $\forall x\exists y\,(E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y)$ is true. (I don't put parentheses around $E(x)\land E(y)$ because usually one posits that conjunction binds stronger than implication.)
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I am talking about your formula rather than the original statement, and yes, I am taking $y=1$.

Yes.

If you have a vessel filled with water, the water does not need your permission to escape through some approved hole. If there is a hole, the water will escape. Similarly, a formula $\exists x\,A$ does not accept recommendations about $x$. If there is a single $x$ that makes $A$ true, then $\exists x\,A$ is true. Now, $y=1$ makes $E(x)\land E(y)$ false; therefore, it makes $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true. Recall the truth table for $\to$, where 1 denotes truth and 0 falsehood.
\[
\begin{array}{c|c|c}
A&B&A\to B\\
\hline
0&0&1\\
\hline
0&1&1\\
\hline
1&0&0\\
\hline
1&1&1
\end{array}
\]
That's it: a single value of $y$ (regardless of $x$) makes $E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y$ true; therefore, $\exists x\,(E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y)$ is true for all $x$; therefore, $\forall x\exists y\,(E(x)\land E(y)\to x=2y)$ is true. (I don't put parentheses around $E(x)\land E(y)$ because usually one posits that conjunction binds stronger than implication.)

I see. So I need to make it to where, for example, if x =2 and y = 1, the result would be false? Also, the notation you mention at the end your first comment was a bit confusing, can you please clarify?
 
strifex said:
So I need to make it to where, for example, if x =2 and y = 1, the result would be false?
It's hard to answer your question because the result should be a formula that does not depend on $x$ and $y$; it should be either true or false. And it should convey the meaning of the original English phrase.

strifex said:
Also, the notation you mention at the end your first comment was a bit confusing, can you please clarify?
Could you describe what exactly is confusing? I used the same notations as you did: quantifiers, $E(x)$, $\land$ and $\to$. By ellipsis I denoted the remaining part of the formula. I meant that if you want to say "All even numbers satisfy a property $P$", then you write $\forall x\,(E(x)\to P(x))$, and if you want to say "There exists an even number that satisfies $P$", then you write $\exists x\,(E(x)\land P(x))$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
It's hard to answer your question because the result should be a formula that does not depend on $x$ and $y$; it should be either true or false. And it should convey the meaning of the original English phrase.

Could you describe what exactly is confusing? I used the same notations as you did: quantifiers, $E(x)$, $\land$ and $\to$. By ellipsis I denoted the remaining part of the formula. I meant that if you want to say "All even numbers satisfy a property $P$", then you write $\forall x\,(E(x)\to P(x))$, and if you want to say "There exists an even number that satisfies $P$", then you write $\exists x\,(E(x)\land P(x))$.

I was referring to the "is even" notation. So, I've seen some write it as such:

∀x∈ℤ, x is even,∀y∈ℤ, y is even, x = 2y.

But I'm still not clear how to write "is even" symbolically.
 
strifex said:
But I'm still not clear how to write "is even" symbolically.
You can write "$x$ is even" as $\exists y\,x=2y$ if $x$ and $y$ range over integers. But I have not suggested any way to write "$x$ is even" in the previous posts. I followed your example in writing $E(x)$. Writing "$x$ is even" is a slightly different problem from writing the original statement.

It's best not to overquote and to leave only the relevant portion of the previous post.
 
Back
Top