Predicate Logic Universal and Existential quantifiers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding predicate logic, specifically the use of universal and existential quantifiers. A user seeks help with a proof involving the statement ∃x F(x) and its negation ~(∀x ~F(x)). They initially struggle with the proof structure but receive guidance on applying reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate a contradiction. The user successfully completes their proof, showing that the assumption of ∀x ~F(x) leads to a contradiction with the premise ∃x F(x). This exchange highlights the importance of clear explanations in learning complex logical concepts.
Mishada17
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm taking an intro logic class and though I'm comfortable with most propositional logic, predicate logic is confusing me. I joined the forum to ask this particular question that I've been stuck on for a while. Any help would be appreciated - I'm having trouble finding information on the web since my teacher uses a different format that most of what I've seen elsewhere.

Homework Statement


∃x F(x) |− ~(∀x ~F(x))


Homework Equations



Lecture information may be found on these two pages:
http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/301s11/Lectures/5natdedS.html
http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/301s11/Lectures/6quantS.html

The Attempt at a Solution


1. ∃x F(x) premise
-----------------
2. a ∀x ~F(x) assumption - I think this is the right assumption because I want to ~it, right?
3. ~ F(a) ∀e 2
4. ∃a ~F(a) ∃i 3
-----------------
5. ∃x ~F(x) ∃e 1 2-4

... beyond here I have no idea. I think I need to find an _|_ but so far the closest I've come is ∃x~F(x) and ∃x F(x) and those apparently don't contradict because ~e won't work on them. :'(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
premise one says something is F, call it a, so F(a) is true.

your assumption (the correct one) says nothing is F, so, in particular, a is not F, so ~F(a) is true.

now its just a matter of putting it in notation your teacher will like.
 
I'm sorry, I still don't understand how to apply it.
 
well, you are doing a proof by reductio ad absurdum. so you need to show that your assumption leads to a contradiction. the statement 'F(a) and ~F(a)' is a contradiction, so if that follows directly from your assumption (and premises), and you believe your premises to be true, then the only conclusion is that your assumption is false, which is what you want to show.

hope this helps
 
It did, thank you. You were ten times more helpful than my teacher, who just said, "look at example 3..." Well, I figured it out and example 3 was no help, sir!

Here is my completed proof:
1. ∃x F(x) premise
----------------------
2. a F(a) assumption
---------------------------
3. ∀x ~F(x) assumption
4. ~ F(a) ∀e 3
5. _|_ ~e 2,4
---------------------------
6. ~(∀x ~F(x)) ~i 3-5
----------------------
7. ~(∀x ~F(x)) ∃e 1,2-6
 
cheers
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top