Analyzing a Quantified Statement: True or False?

  • Thread starter fishturtle1
  • Start date
In summary, the original statement is negated as "There exists an x, such that x is an integer and for all y, y is not an integer or x is not equal to 2y, and for all z, z is not an integer or x is not equal to 2z." The statement in English is "If x is an integer and for all y, y is not an integer or x is not equal to 2y, then there exists a z that is an
  • #1
fishturtle1
394
82

Homework Statement


Consider the following statement:

##\forall x, ((x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge \neg(\exists y, (y \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge z = 7y))) \rightarrow (\exists z, (z \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge x = 2z)))##

a)Negate this statement.
b)Write the original statement in English.
c) Which statement is true? Explain.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


a) I negate the statement as ##\forall x, P(x) \rightarrow G(x)##

answer: ##\exists x, ((x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge \neg(\exists y, (y \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge z = 7y))) \wedge \forall z, (z \in \mathbb{Z} \vee x \ne 2z)##

and then simplifying the statement with y,

= ##\exists x, ((x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge \forall y, (y \notin \mathbb{Z} \vee z \ne 7y))) \wedge \forall z, (z \notin \mathbb{Z} \vee x \ne 2z)##

b) statement in English: There exists an x, such that x is an integer and for all y, y is an integer or x =/= 2y, and for all z, z is not an integer or x =/= 2z.

c) The negation of the original statement is true.

If we suppose for all x, x is an integer and for all y, y is not an integer or x =/= 2y (the hypothesis in the original statement) then the conclusion, there exists a z such that z is an integer and x = 2z, cannot be true.

This is because "for all y, y is not an integer or x =/= 2y" <=> "there exists a z such that z is an integer and x = 2z" is a contradiction.

So the negation of this statement must be true.

My biggest confusion is what i put in bold. I think this might be an unreasonable assumption.. but I don't know how else to see which statement is true. My question is, can I make this assumption because x,y,z seem to be elements of the same universe?

Also I should have named this "quantifier question".. not sure how to edit the title.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Some observations:
  • In the antecedent you have used a ##z## that is a free variable (ie unquantified). Was that supposed to be ##x##? If it is a z then neither the original statement nor its negation has a truth value, as both contain a free variable and hence are not a sentence.
  • The 'simplified' version of the negated formula is a correct negation of the original formula you wrote, but the unsimplified one is not, because the first conjunct of the consequent should be ##z\notin \mathbb Z##, not ##z\in \mathbb Z##
  • For (b), you have written 2y where it should be 7y, if your rendition of the original formula is correct. Also, you have put an 'or' where there should be an 'and'
  • If we replace ##z## by ##x## in the antecedent of the original then your statement about (c) is correct. Otherwise both are indeterminate.
  • Can you give an example of a value of #x## that falsifies the original statement (after replacing the z in the antecedent by x), thereby proving its negation?
 
  • #3
andrewkirk said:
Some observations:
  • In the antecedent you have used a ##z## that is a free variable (ie unquantified). Was that supposed to be ##x##? If it is a z then neither the original statement nor its negation has a truth value, as both contain a free variable and hence are not a sentence.
  • The 'simplified' version of the negated formula is a correct negation of the original formula you wrote, but the unsimplified one is not, because the first conjunct of the consequent should be ##z\notin \mathbb Z##, not ##z\in \mathbb Z##
  • For (b), you have written 2y where it should be 7y, if your rendition of the original formula is correct. Also, you have put an 'or' where there should be an 'and'
  • If we replace ##z## by ##x## in the antecedent of the original then your statement about (c) is correct. Otherwise both are indeterminate.
  • Can you give an example of a value of #x## that falsifies the original statement (after replacing the z in the antecedent by x), thereby proving its negation?
Thanks for the response

The z in the antecedent was supposed to be an x.
I understand your second point, I made a(a bunch) of mistakes typing what I had.
To your third point, this was another typo.. here is the corrected version:

original statement to negate: ##\forall x ((x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge \neg (\exists y, (y \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge x = 2y))) \rightarrow \exists z, (z \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge x = 2z)))##

a) so the negation is: ##\exists x, (x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge \neg (\exists y, y \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge x = 2y)) \wedge \forall z, (z \notin \mathbb{Z} \vee x \ne 2z)##

and the simplification: ##\exists x, (x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge (\forall y, y \notin \mathbb{Z} \vee x \ne 2y)) \wedge \forall z, (z \notin \mathbb{Z} \vee x \ne 2z)##

b) There exists an x, such that x is an integer and for all y, y is not an integer or x ##\ne## 2y, and for all z, z is not an integer or x ##\ne## 2z... I checked this a few times I don't think either of the or's should be changed to and.

So for c)... I need to find some integer x such that for all y, ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}## or ##x \ne 2y## and all z, ##z \notin \mathbb{Z}## or ##x \ne 2z##.

and since y and z are elements of the same universe, we only need to show: there exists some integer x such that for all y, ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}## or ##x \ne 2y##

If i make x an odd integer, then either ##x \ne 2y## or ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}##.

but if ##x \ne 2y## then ##y \in \mathbb{Z}## and if ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}## then ##x = 2y##
... so x being an odd integer seems like a dead end..

if I make x an even integer then ##x =2y## and ##y \in \mathbb{Z}## is true..
##x \ne 2y## and ##y \in \mathbb{Z}## is not true..
so x being an even integer seems like a dead end..

I think x being even or odd will give me the counterexample since one of the conditions is x being divisible by 2...

EDIT: if we let x be an even integer then x = 2k for some integer k.
So ##x \ne 2y## and ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}## is a true statement.
We know ##P \wedge Q \rightarrow P \vee Q## so we conclude that ##x \ne 2y## or ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}## is true.

so if x is an even integer, then ##x \ne 2y## and ##y \notin \mathbb{Z}##. So we've shown the antecedent is true and that the conclusion is false. And so we conclude the negation of the statement must be true.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Analyzing a Quantified Statement: True or False?

1. How do you determine if a quantified statement is true or false?

To determine if a quantified statement is true or false, you must first evaluate the truth value of the statement's components. This includes analyzing the quantifier, the subject term, and the predicate term. Then, you must check if the statement follows the rules of logic and if it is supported by evidence or reasoning. If all of these elements align, the statement can be considered true.

2. What is a quantifier in a quantified statement?

A quantifier is a word or phrase that specifies the quantity or amount of the subject term in a statement. There are two types of quantifiers: universal and existential. Universal quantifiers, such as "all" or "every", indicate that the statement applies to all members of a group. Existential quantifiers, such as "some" or "at least one", indicate that the statement applies to at least one member of a group.

3. Can a quantified statement be both true and false?

No, a quantified statement can only be either true or false. This is based on the rules of logic, specifically the law of excluded middle which states that a statement must either be true or false, there is no in-between. However, a quantified statement can be considered partially true if it has some elements that are true and others that are false.

4. How can you prove that a quantified statement is true or false?

To prove the truth value of a quantified statement, you can use logical reasoning, evidence, or examples. First, you can break down the statement into its components and analyze each one individually. Then, you can use logical rules or evidence to support the truth value of the statement. Additionally, you can provide examples that demonstrate the validity of the statement.

5. What are some common errors when analyzing a quantified statement?

Some common errors when analyzing a quantified statement include incorrectly identifying the quantifier, using faulty logic or reasoning, and not providing enough evidence to support the statement. It is important to carefully evaluate each component of the statement and ensure that it aligns with the rules of logic. Additionally, providing clear and relevant evidence is crucial in proving the truth value of a statement.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Back
Top