Proof of a simple logic statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter soopo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a logical statement involving universal and existential quantifiers, specifically the expression \(\forall x \in S \leftrightarrow \exists x \not \in S\). Participants are examining the validity of this statement and attempting to understand its implications within the context of first-order logic.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • One participant attempts a proof by contradiction to show the statement is false, while others question the formulation of the statement and its logical structure. There are discussions about the correct interpretation of the quantifiers and the conditions under which the statement holds.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on the original statement's formulation and suggesting alternative expressions. There is no explicit consensus on the validity of the original statement, but there is a shared understanding that the formulation may need revision.

Contextual Notes

Participants are noting that the original statement may not be a well-formed formula in first-order logic, raising concerns about its clarity and correctness. There is also mention of the need for precise definitions in logical expressions.

soopo
Messages
222
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[tex]\forall x \in S <-> \exists x \not \in S[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


The statement is clearly false.
I will try to show that by the proof of contradiction.

Let
[tex]P: \forall x \in S[/tex]
and
[tex]Q: \exists x \not\in S[/tex]

The negation of Q is
[tex]negQ: \forall x \not\in S[/tex]
and the negation of P is
[tex]negP: \exists x \in S[/tex].

negQ means that all x are not in S, while negP means that there is one x in S.
This is a contradiction.

Therefore, the original statement must be false.

Is my proof correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your statement is a bit odd.
"For all x in S, is equivalent to there exists an x such that there exists an S"
What is on the right hand side? What does x exist in and there exist x and S such that what?In first-order logic, your statement is not a well-formed formula :-p
 
CompuChip said:
"For all x in S, is equivalent to there exists an x such that there exists an S"
What is on the right hand side? What does x exist in and there exist x and S such that what?

The statement should be "For all x in S, is equivalent to there does not exist an x in S."

The rest of the proof is also now as I want.
 
CompuChip said:
Your statement is a bit odd.
"For all x in S, is equivalent to there exists an x such that there exists an S"
What is on the right hand side? What does x exist in and there exist x and S such that what?


In first-order logic, your statement is not a well-formed formula :-p

I agree with you. The statement is still false.

Perhaps, the initial statement should be
[tex]\forall x \in S <=> \neg(\exists x \not \in S)[/tex]

It means that: all x in S is equivalent with the negation of the statement that
there exists x not in S.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K