MHB How to Create Symbolic Versions of Statements in Formal Language

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valtham
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To convert the statement "Each of our representatives has at least one customer that is located in Japan" into symbolic form, it is essential to define the appropriate signature. The suggested signature includes R(x) for representatives, C(x) for customers, W(x, y) for the representative-customer relationship, L(x, y) for location, and a constant j representing Japan. The confusion arises around how to represent Japan, with the consensus leaning towards treating it as a constant rather than a set or an if-and-only-if statement. The symbolic representation could be structured as "For all x (R(x) → ∃y (C(y) ∧ W(x, y) ∧ L(y, j)))". This approach emphasizes the need for a clear signature to accurately translate English statements into formal language.
Valtham
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Currently I am trying to convert a statement into symbolic version. The following statement:

"Each of our representatives has at least one customer that is located in Japan."

I'm a little confused about this because I'm not sure how I would represent "Japan" in the symbolic version. At the moment I would say "For all y, there exists x in Japan." Should I treat Japan as a set, or would I treat it like an iff statement? I can't find the tool to write equations or I would write in symbolic form.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The result of turning an English statement into symbolic form depends on the formal language, also called the signature, that you have. I would prefer the problem statement provided a signature because otherwise there are too many possible answers.

I think the following signature is appropriate here.

R(x): x is a representative

C(x): x is a customer

W(x, y): x works with y, i.e., x and y have a representative-customer relation

L(x, y): x is located in y

j: Japan (j is a constant).
 
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.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top