MHB Predicate logic with multiple quantifiers

brynjolf23
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone. This is my first post on this forum. Thank you for taking the time to help me with my question.
I have no idea where to start. :(

Question 1:
Find an example of a predicate P(x,y) where the domain of x and y are D such that
$\forall x \in D, \exists y \in D, P(x,y)$ is true but $\exists y \in D, \forall x \in D, P(x,y)$ is false.

Let D={1,2,3}

Question 2:
Is it possible to find a predicate P(x,y) such that:
$\exists y \in D, \forall x \in D, P(x,y)$ is true but $\forall x \in D, \exists y \in D, P(x,y)$ is false

Let D={1,2,3}

Question 3:
Is there any method of finding a suitable predicate? or do i just have to guess my way through?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi brynjolf23 and welcome to MHB!

I've placed the appropriate delimiters around your LaTeX code. They are (for this site)

\$...\$ - for inline text

\$\$...\$\$ or [math]...[/math] - for text on a newline in 'full' mode.

You can display inline text in full mode by preceding a set of commands with '\displaystyle'.

Thanks and enjoy the forum!
 
brynjolf23 said:
Hello everyone. This is my first post on this forum. Thank you for taking the time to help me with my question.
I have no idea where to start. :(

Question 1:
Find an example of a predicate P(x,y) where the domain of x and y are D such that
$\forall x \in D, \exists y \in D, P(x,y)$ is true but $\exists y \in D, \forall x \in D, P(x,y)$ is false.

Let D={1,2,3}

Question 2:
Is it possible to find a predicate P(x,y) such that:
$\exists y \in D, \forall x \in D, P(x,y)$ is true but $\forall x \in D, \exists y \in D, P(x,y)$ is false

Let D={1,2,3}

Question 3:
Is there any method of finding a suitable predicate? or do i just have to guess my way through?
Hi,

To be able to help you, we need to know the context of your questions. That is why we ask you to show any work you have done (even if it is wrong); at least, you should tell us what you are studying. This is specially important in formal logic, since there are several methods of deduction.

In this case, to get you started, I can offer an informal description. Both statements are about finding pairs $(x,y)$ that make $P(x,y)$ true. In the first statement, $\forall x \exists y\, P(x,y)$ you can find, for each $x$, at least one $y$ that makes $P(x,y)$ true. Note that each $y$ may depend on $x$.

On the other hand, in the statement $\exists y\forall x\, P(x,y)$, there must be a single $y$ that works for all $x$.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top