I Does Rearranging Quantifiers Affect Looping in Nested Statements?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter SamitC
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Rearranging quantifiers in nested statements can affect readability but not the logical meaning in this specific case. The expressions provided for "Some student did not ask any faculty member a question" yield equivalent interpretations regardless of the order of quantifiers. However, placing all quantifiers at the front may complicate understanding due to the need to track multiple variables and their relationships. There are scenarios where rearranging quantifiers could lead to different outcomes, although no specific examples were provided in the discussion. Overall, while it may not change the logic here, clarity can be compromised by such rearrangements.
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.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.