Is my Predicate Logic Solution Correct?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter robert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Predicate logic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the correct predicate logic representation of the sentence "No American who hasn't met any Canadian knows Canada." Participants are analyzing different logical formulations and their equivalences, focusing on the accuracy of their interpretations and representations in predicate logic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proposed logical formulation: Vx-Ex((Ax ^ Cy ^ Mxy) -> -Kxc) and questions its validity against the teacher's answer.
  • Another participant asserts that a correct answer must be logically equivalent to a different formulation: \neg (\exists x)(Ax\ \wedge \ (\forall y)(Cy\ \rightarrow \ \neg Mxy)\ \wedge \ Kxc), arguing that the teacher's answer does not accurately reflect the original sentence.
  • A third participant introduces definitions for the sets and predicates involved, suggesting a reformulation of the logic based on these definitions.
  • A correction is noted regarding a typographical error in the third post, indicating a need for clarity in the logical representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the proposed logical formulations and their equivalences. There is no consensus on which representation accurately captures the original sentence's meaning.

Contextual Notes

Participants rely on specific definitions and logical structures that may not be universally agreed upon, leading to potential misunderstandings. The discussion highlights the complexity of translating natural language into predicate logic.

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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A correct answer must be logically equivalent to:

\neg (\exists x)(Ax\ \wedge \ (\forall y)(Cy\ \rightarrow \ \neg Mxy)\ \wedge \ Kxc)

The answer you said your teacher gave is:

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

which is logically equivalent to:

(\forall x)(\forall y)(Ax \wedge Cy \wedge Mxy \wedge Kxc)

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)).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
7K