Help in understanding logical statements

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryan Dade
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding logical statements, particularly in the context of predicate logic. Participants are addressing two specific problems related to logical derivations and validity, seeking clarification and assistance in their reasoning processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two problems involving logical statements and requests help in deriving solutions.
  • Another participant questions the notation used, suggesting that the first problem may represent a contradiction if interpreted as A → ¬A, and proposes an alternative interpretation.
  • A third participant clarifies the implications of the assumption in the first problem, indicating that the statement is trivially true under certain conditions.
  • A fourth participant shares their struggle with deriving a specific logical statement and provides a partial derivation, indicating a lack of strong background in predicate logic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the problems and their assumptions, indicating that there is no consensus on the correct approach or understanding of the statements involved. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple viewpoints presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of notation and assumptions made in the problems, which may affect the understanding and derivation processes discussed. Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of their assumptions.

Ryan Dade
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In lieu of taking an extra course I signed up for a class without fulfilling a prerequisite. Now I'm trying to teach myself the stuff I should have learned and am having a hard time with two problems. If anyone can help explain how to get to the solution I would appreciate it.

1.) Show that the following holds true. Derive ([tex]\forall[/tex]x)(If ~Mx thenMx) with the assumption ([tex]\forall[/tex]x)(Mx)

2.) Show that the following is valid.
([tex]\exists[/tex]x) (If Cx then Ch)
([tex]\exists[/tex]x) (Cx if and only if Ch)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you clarify on notation? For if I take the ~ symbol to mean "not" then the first question seems to be of the form [itex]A \rightarrow \neg A[/itex] which is a contradiction (if it's raining, it's not raining). Or perhaps you meant: [itex]\forall x(\neg\neg Mx \rightarrow Mx)[/itex] ?

For the second, note that "Cx if and only if Ch" is shorthand for "(If Cx then Ch) and (if Ch then Cx)" and that one of them is already given. The other side is almost trivial: what is it you still need to prove?
 
CompuChip, notice the "with the assumption ([itex]\forall[/itex]x)(Mx). The first one is really "if, for all x, Mx is true and, for all x, Mx is false, then Mx is true". Since the hypothesis is false, the statement is trivially true.
 
I'm trying to figure out how to show it. For example

Derive ([tex]\forall[/tex]z)Kzz

1. ([tex]\forall[/tex]x)Kxx Assumption
2. Kcc 1[tex]\forall[/tex]E
3. ([tex]\forall[/tex]z)Kzz 2[tex]\forall[/tex]I

But I do not have a strong background in Predicate Logic so some problems are more difficult for me to get a full understanding of
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K