1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Homework help: predicate logic

  1. May 4, 2005 #1
    I am taking a logic class and we are getting into Predicate Logic and i have no idea how to do it can someone help me?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What are some specific things you don't understand? Are you comfortable with everything in propositional (or sentential) logic?
  4. May 5, 2005 #3
    I'm also studying predicate logic, and I can't say I'm hugely comfortable with propositional logic.

    Here's a problem I'm working on right now:

    V(universal quantifier)xFx |- VxGx--->Vx(Fx & Gx)

    Having trouble getting started. Due in two hours. I know that I should hypothesize...

    Here's basically where I got stuck:

    1. V(universal quantifier)xFx |- VxGx--->Vx(Fx & Gx) A
    2. | VxGx H
    3. | Vx(Gx v Fx) 1, 2 vI
    4. VxGx ----> Vx(Gx v Fx) 2,3--->I

    From there I'm lost. De Morgan's doesn't get me exactly what I need.

    Eh...looks like I need to get out of the propositional logic box.
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  5. May 5, 2005 #4
    Hell, all these are hard. The next ones are:

    3. -](makeshift particular quantifier)x]yLxy |- Vx-Lxx

    Quantifier exchange...but how do I get rid of the y?

    4. |- ]xFx v Vx-Fx

    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  6. May 5, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You can use Universal Instantiation, Conditional Proof, Conjunction Introduction (P, Q l- (P & Q)), and Universal Generalization.
    Is "-" negation or part of the quantifiers? "~" is negation, A and E are quantifiers.
    3) ~(ExEy(Lxy)) l- Ax~(Lxx) ?
    4) l- ~(Ex(Fx) v Ax~(Fx)) ?
  7. May 5, 2005 #6
    According to your definitions, those problems look like:

    3. ~Ex EyLxy |-Ax ~Lxx (close to the same thing)

    4.|- ExFx v Ax ~Fx (looks like my post had a typo - no negation on the first existential quantifier)

    Thanks, btw. Pretty sure I got the first one. I have:

    2. Fa AE
    3. | Ga
    4. | Ga & Fa
    5. Ga ---> Ga & Fa
    6. Ga ---> Fa & Ga
    7. AxGx--->Ax(Fx & Gx)

    Don't worry too much about it...need help on these others.
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  8. May 5, 2005 #7
    Anyhow, thanks for the help. Might've gotten the last one, but I'm heading off to class now. Serves me right for procrastinating. :rolleyes:
  9. May 5, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I'm not sure how to get rid of the y either.
    Double negation. What is ~~Ax(~Fx)? Or ~~Ex(Fx)?

    Looks good.

    Edit: Ah, I spent too long trying to find a stupid rule for 3. :grumpy:
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  10. May 5, 2005 #9
    I did manage to get #4 right before I left for class. It's just:

    4.|- ExFx v Ax ~Fx

    1. | ~ExFx
    2. | Ax ~Fx 1, QE
    3. ~ExFx ---> Ax ~Fx 1-2 -->I
    4. ~~ExFx v Ax ~Fx 3, MI
    5. ExFx v Ax ~Fx

    That double negation might've been what you were hinting at. I was having trouble figuring out how Quantum Exchange worked exactly, heh. Oh well. I got another homework assignment...might end up posting it too. :tongue:
  11. May 5, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For #3, can't you use this?

    Ay Py

    Or some sort of substitution rule?
  12. May 5, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    3. ~Ex EyLxy |-Ax ~Lxx
    If the negation applies only to Ex, I don't know what to do- it doesn't really even make sense to me. So I'll assume it applies to ExEy.
    I only know some predicate logic, and I'm least comfortable with quantifier inference rules, but I've read that you can't instantiate a negated quantifier (which makes sense); So you at least know you need to move the negation to Lxy beforehand: AxAy~(Lxy). Unless otherwise noted, x and y aren't necessarily distinct, so AxAy~(Lxy) implies Ax~(Lxx), but I don't know how to derive it. If there isn't a restriction on UI such that
    1. AxAy~(Lxy)
    2. ~Luu (u is an arbitrary constant) [1, UI]
    is invalid, the proof is a cinch. If that is invalid, I don't know what to do.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook