Translating english to predicate logic

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves translating a statement about students chatting over the internet into predicate logic. The original poster is tasked with expressing that there are two students who together have chatted with all other students in the class.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to formulate the logic expression but expresses uncertainty about the interpretation of the last part of their expression. Other participants provide feedback on the correctness and potential simplification of the expression, while also addressing the need for distinctness between the two students.

Discussion Status

The discussion has seen participants providing corrections and suggestions for simplification. The original poster has acknowledged the feedback and made adjustments to their formula. There is an ongoing exploration of how to accurately represent the conditions of the problem, including the distinctness of the two students.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on ensuring the logical expression accurately reflects the problem statement, including considerations about the distinctness of the two students involved in the chatting scenario.

maxsthekat
Messages
55
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I've been given a problem: "C(x,y) is x and y have chatted over the internet. The domain is students in a class. Express there are two students who combined have chatted with all of the students in the class".2. The attempt at a solution
I think this is the correct answer, but I'm not certain.

\exists x,y \forall z (C(x,z) \wedge \neg C(y,z)) \vee (C(y,z) \wedge \neg C(x,z)) \vee (C(x,z) \wedge C(y,z))

The part I'm uncertain about is the last statement, C(x,z) ^ C(y,z). I think this states there exists an x and y, where x has spoken with z and y has spoken with z, but I could also see this as saying there is an x that has spoken with all z and there is a y that has spoken with all z.

Would anyone be willing to double check my work?

Thanks! :)

-Max
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think in the first disjunct you meant to write (C(x,z) \wedge \neg C(y, z)) rather than (C(x, z) \wedge \neg C(y, x)). Given that small correction, your formula is correct, but it is not the shortest possible. You wrote the large disjunction so that the three alternatives are mutually exclusive, but they need not be. If you allow your disjuncts to overlap, you can write a much shorter formula.

The part I'm uncertain about is the last statement, C(x,z) ^ C(y,z). I think this states there exists an x and y, where x has spoken with z and y has spoken with z, but I could also see this as saying there is an x that has spoken with all z and there is a y that has spoken with all z.

Your first thought is correct. When the quantifier \forall z lies outside the disjunction, it applies to the entire disjunction, not separately to each clause: there exist x and y such that, for each z, at least one of the three alternatives holds; but which holds can vary from z to z.
 
Thanks for your help :) You were right, and I corrected the formula above to reflect what was meant.

Thinking about your suggestion of simplifying this based on the overlap, I think this should just be an disjunction of the students x and y have chatted with. As such, can I write this as:

\exists x,y \forall z (C(x,z) \vee C(y,z))

If I'm waaaay off, I'd appreciate any insight you'd care to share :)

Thanks again

-Max
 
Last edited:
You now have the simple correct answer.
 
If you want to state that the two students are distinct (that is, you want to rule out the possibility of just one chatted with all the others), you must add \lnot\left(x=y\right).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K