Predicate Logic Universal and Existential quantifiers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding predicate logic, specifically the use of universal and existential quantifiers. The original poster expresses confusion regarding a proof involving the statement ∃x F(x) |− ~(∀x ~F(x)).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the original poster's attempts at a proof by reductio ad absurdum, questioning the validity of assumptions and the implications of the premises. There is exploration of how to derive contradictions from the assumptions made.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on how to approach the proof, suggesting that the original poster needs to demonstrate that their assumption leads to a contradiction. The conversation indicates a productive exchange of ideas, with some participants clarifying concepts and offering insights into the proof structure.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions difficulty in finding resources that align with their teacher's format, which may influence their understanding of the material. There is also a reference to specific examples from lecture materials that were not helpful.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
10K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K