Solving Logical Notation Problems Using Propositional Connectives & Quantifiers

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter p4nda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around converting set relationships into logical notation using propositional connectives and quantifiers. Participants explore various problems related to set inclusion, intersection, and emptiness, seeking clarity on how to express these concepts formally.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that for the problem "A ⊆ B ∩ C," the logical notation should be expressed as ∀x(x ∈ A → x ∈ B ∧ x ∈ C).
  • There is uncertainty regarding the notation for the set {x, y}, with some suggesting it simply represents the elements x and y.
  • One participant challenges the expression for "A = ø," suggesting that the initial attempt does not accurately describe the empty set.
  • For "A = {x}," participants discuss the need to clarify that every element of A is identical to x, with some suggesting alternative expressions to avoid confusion with variable usage.
  • Multiple participants express discomfort with using the same variable for both a specific element and a bound variable, leading to suggestions for clearer notation.
  • One participant provides a detailed breakdown of the logical expressions for each problem, attempting to clarify the reasoning behind each conversion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct logical expressions for all problems, with various interpretations and suggestions being offered. Disagreement exists particularly around the notation for the empty set and the representation of specific elements in set notation.

Contextual Notes

Some expressions remain incomplete or unclear, particularly regarding the proper use of symbols and the definitions of certain set relationships. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with logical notation among participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals learning about logical notation in set theory, particularly those seeking to understand how to express set relationships using quantifiers and propositional connectives.

p4nda
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I need help on converting these to the correct logical notation form using only the propositional connectives and the quantifiers. I'd appreciate if there are some explanation for the reasons of converting in such ways.


This is what I got so far:
(a) Problem: A ⊆ B ∩ C
What I tried getting: ∀x(x ∈ A → x ∈ B ∧ x ∈ C)

(b) Problem: A ⊆ {x, y}
What I tried getting (incomplete... don't understand the {x, y} part): ∀x(x ∈ A → ... )

(c) Problem: A = ø
What I tried getting (don't understand this one, either): ∃x(x ¬∈ A)

(d) Problem: A = {x}
What I tried getting (incomplete): ∀x(x ∈ A ⇔ ...)


These are the examples given:
(a) Problem: A ⊆ B
Converted to: ∀x(x ∈ A → x ∈ B)

(b) Problem: A ∩ B ≠ ø
Converted to: ∃x(x ∈ A ∧ x ∈ B)


Thanks, your help would be greatly appreciated. :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(b) {x,y} is just the set consisting of the elements x and y.

(c) your statement doesn't describe "A is the empty set." Try again.

(d) you need to say that every element of A is an element of {x}; that is, x is the only element of A.
 
I'm pretty new to this... so I don't really know the symbols for representing everything. But I'll give it another try. :)

(b) ∀x(x ∈ A → x ^ y)

^ I don't know the symbol for "set," do I just leave it as it is "{x, y}?"

(c) ∀x(x ¬∈ A) or ¬∃x(x ∈ A)

(d) ∀x(x ∈ A)
 
Last edited:
p4nda said:
I'm pretty new to this... so I don't really know the symbols for representing everything. But I'll give it another try. :)

(b) ∀x(x ∈ A → x ^ y)

^ I don't know the symbol for "set," do I just leave it as it is "{x, y}?"
Yes; so you will have [itex]\forall x (x\in A\Rightarrow x \in \{x,y\})[/itex]

(c) ∀x(x ¬∈ A) or ¬∃x(x ∈ A)
I don't know whether you're allowed to use "not in". An alternative expression is [itex]\forall x(x\in A^{c})[/itex]
(d) ∀x(x ∈ A)

Try using a different letter. What can you say for every y that is in A?
 
(d) ∀x(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)
 
p4nda said:
(b) ∀x(x ∈ A → x ^ y)

I'm really uncomfortable with the use of x for a particular value as well as one of your bound values. I'd prefer
[tex]\forall z (z\in A\Rightarrow z\in\{x,y\})[/tex]
or
[tex]\forall z (z\in A\Rightarrow(z=x\vee z=y)[/tex].
 
p4nda said:
(d) ∀x(z ∈ A ⇔ z = x)

Close. This could also describe the empty set; you should rule this out.
 
for the one A equals the empty set, use the example AB equals the empty set and make the necessary substitution.
 
Here we go. I don't know how to do the coding, so I'll try to spell everything out and then give formulae that look like what should be written.

(a) A is a subset of the intersection of B and C. Therefore all the members of A are in both B and C.
(Ax)[(x E A) --> ((x E B) & (x E C))]
'For all X, if X is an element of A then both X is an element of B and X is an element of C.'

(b) A is a subset of {x,y}. All elements of A are either x or y.
(Az)[(z E A)-->(z=x) v (z=y)]
'For all Z, if Z is an element of A then Z is either identical to X or identical to Y.'

(c) A is the null set.
(Ax)~[x E A]
For all X, it is not the case that x is an element of A.

(d) A is a set consisting of one element: x.
(Ex)(Ay)[(x E A) & ((y E A) --> (y=x))]
There exists an X, and for all Y, X is an element of A, and if Y is an element of A then y is identical to X.

Hope this helps.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K