I Does Rearranging Quantifiers Affect Looping in Nested Statements?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter SamitC
  • Start date Start date
SamitC
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Suppose a problem statement is :

In a school, suppose S(x) is “x is a student”, F(x) is “x is a faculty member” and A (x, y) is “x asked a question to y”. Domain is all the people associated with the school. Write the following using quantifiers:
"Some student did not ask any faculty member a question".

Answers are:

So, ∃x [S(x) ∧ ∀y {F(y) → ¬ A(x, y)}] OR ∃x [S(x) ∧ ¬∃y {F(y)A(x, y)}]

Instead, if we bring all the quantifiers at the front, will it cause any difference? Like:
xy [S(x) ∧ {F(y) → ¬ A(x, y)}] OR ∃x ¬∃y [S(x) ∧ {F(y)A(x, y)}]

In general, does it ever cause any change in looping if we bring all quantifiers at the front? Or is there any specific reason not to put all quantifiers at the front?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In this case it doesn't make a difference, but sometimes it can make the expressions harder to read because you have to remember all the variables and their quantifiers before they are actually used.

There could be expressions where it makes a difference, although I don't have an example right now.
 
  • Like
Likes SamitC
mfb said:
In this case it doesn't make a difference, but sometimes it can make the expressions harder to read because you have to remember all the variables and their quantifiers before they are actually used.

There could be expressions where it makes a difference, although I don't have an example right now.
Thank you.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top