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
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
I was thinking using 2 purple mattress samples, and taping them together, I do want other ideas though, the main guidelines are; Must have a volume LESS than 1600 cubic centimeters, and CAN'T exceed 25 cm in ANY direction. Must be LESS than 1 kg. NO parachutes. NO glue or Tape can touch the egg. MUST be able to take egg out in less than 1 minute. Grade A large eggs will be used.
Back
Top