Is my Predicate Logic Solution Correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter robert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Predicate logic
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 6K views
robert
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I have the sentence: No American who hasn't met any Canadian's knows Canada. The teacher gave the correct answer as being:

Vx-Ex((Ax ^ Cy ^ Mxy) -> -Kxc)

Would this version also work?:

-ExEy(Ax ^ Kxc ^ Cy ^ Mxy)

or is it supposed to be:

-ExEy(Ax ^ Kxc ^ Cy ^ -Mxy)

After thinking about it, I think it may be the second. Which means I got it wrong on the assignment.
 
on Phys.org
A correct answer must be logically equivalent to:

[tex]\neg (\exists x)(Ax\ \wedge \ (\forall y)(Cy\ \rightarrow \ \neg Mxy)\ \wedge \ Kxc)[/tex]

The answer you said your teacher gave is:

[tex](\forall x)\neg (\exists y)[(Ax \wedge Cy \wedge Mxy) \rightarrow \neg Kxc][/tex]

which is logically equivalent to:

[tex](\forall x)(\forall y)(Ax \wedge Cy \wedge Mxy \wedge Kxc)[/tex]

which says: "Everybody is American, everybody is Canadian, everybody has met everyone, and everyone knows Canada" which is obviously not what the original English sentence says. Anyways, neither of your answers are logically equivalent to the answer your teacher supposedly gave, nor the answer I gave at the start of this post.
 
Let U = the set of all Americans (presumably U.S. citizens).
Let M(x) denote: x has never met a Canadian.
Let K(x) denote: x does not know Canada.

For any x [C(x)) -> K(x)] <=>
There does not exit an x [C(x) and ~K(x)]
 
Correction: Post #3 should read, C(x) instead of C(x)).