I converting conditional statements into logical notation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on converting conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers. Participants explore the implications of statements regarding the set A, such as its cardinality and the concept of a singleton. Clarifications are made about the meaning of the empty set being a member of A versus being a subset. Suggestions are provided to refine the logical expressions, emphasizing the need to avoid free variables and clarify notation. The conversation highlights the nuances of set theory and logical representation in mathematical contexts.
dabige1010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i need to covert the following conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers:

a) A has at most one element


b)A is a singleton


c)ø ∈ A

you don't have to give me the answers, just help me get started or give me some hints
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dabige1010 said:
i need to covert the following conditional statements into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers:

a) A has at most one element
Think of the cardinality of A.

b)A is a singleton
What is a singleton? Suppose A has two elements; what can you say about these elements?
c)ø ∈ A
This says "the empty set is a member of A." This doesn't make sense, to me; don't you mean "the empty set is a subset of A?"

you don't have to give me the answers, just help me get started or give me some hints[/QUOTE]
 
this is what I've come up with:

a) ∀x(x ∈ A → (x⇔ø v x ⇔ n))

b) ∀z(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)

C) i didnt mistype, "ø ∈ A" is what the question said. i guess it's just a typo by the prof.

let me know what you think of the two answers i do have though.

thanks a lot!
 
ø ∈ A is quite sensible; it's used in the canonical set-theoretic construction of Peano arithmetic, for example. But I'm not sure what you'd need to do to rewrite it.

dabige1010 said:
a) ∀x(x ∈ A → (x⇔ø v x ⇔ n))

b) ∀z(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)

These have free variables, which I don't think you want. For the first one, I'd expect something like ∃n∀x (x ∈ A → x=n). Also, I'm not at all sure what you intend by "x⇔ø", which is surely not the same as your use of the double arrow in the second formula.
 
CRGreathouse said:
ø ∈ A is quite sensible; it's used in the canonical set-theoretic construction of Peano arithmetic, for example.

Fair enough. So; what does it mean?
 
cristo said:
Fair enough. So; what does it mean?

"The empty set is a member of A", what else? You might use the following definitions for numbers, for example:

0 = ø
S(n) = n U {n}

So that
1 = {ø} U ø = {0}
2 = {0} U {{0}} = {0, {0}} = {0, 1}
3 = {0, 1} U {{0, 1}} = {0, 1, 2}
. . .

"ø is a subset of A" is true for all sets A, but "ø is a member of A" is true for only some A. "ø ∈ ø" is false, for example; nothing is in the empty set, not even the empty set.
 
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