Predicates, Quantifiers and Nested Quantifiers
|
|
- Marlene Snow
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Predicates, Quantifiers and Nested Quantifiers
2 Predicates Recall the example of a non-proposition in our first presentation: 2x=1. Let us call this expression P(x). P(x) is not a proposition because x is undefined, hence P x has no clearly defined truth value. However, for each x, P(x) is a proposition. For example: P 1 (2 = 1) is a proposition. P 1 2 (1 = 1) is a proposition. Therefore, P is a proposition-valued function. It is a function that assigns to each real number x a proposition P x. Proposition-valued functions are also known as predicates, because just like predicates in grammar, they convey an idea about, or express the action of, a subject. The domain (set of input values) of a predicate is also known as the domain of discourse or universe of discourse. The domain of discourse is often implied for example, when the predicate is apparently about a number, then we assume that the domain is the largest set of real numbers for which the predicate is meaningful. For example, for the predicate P x = ( x > 2), the default domain is all non-negative real numbers. A predicate can be a function of several variables. A predicate of two variables, P x, y is called a binary predicate.
3 Defining a Predicate Without referring to an Input Some predicates can be conveniently defined without reference to an input variable. For example, the predicate D defined on the set of animals by D(x) = x is a dog can also be defined by D = is a dog. This variation of the definition strengthens the analogy between the logical and the grammatical concept of predicate, because it makes it clear that D by itself is what is being said about a subject. This is similar to how we can define some numerical functions without referring to an input variable; instead of writing f(x) = sin(x), we can just write f = sin.
4 Quantification We just saw that evaluation turns a predicate P(x) into a proposition. There is another way to do that: quantification. A quantification of a predicate is the proposition that P(x) is true for some or all input values. We distinguish Two basic quantifiers: Existential quantification: P(x) is true for at least one x in the domain of discourse. Universal quantification: P(x) is true for all x values in the domain of discourse. Notation xp x xp x The existential quantifier can also be read as there is or there are, with the understanding that the singular form does not mean to imply that there is only one x that makes P(x) true, and the plural does not mean to imply that there is more than one.
5 Nested Quantified Statements Nested quantified statements have to be parsed from left to right. This means that x yp x, y is the statement x yp x, y, i.e., the statement that for every x, there exists a y (that usually depends on x) that makes P(x,y) true. Likewise, x yp x, y is the statement x yp x, y, i.e. the statement that there exists a (single) x so that no matter what y is, P(x,y) is true. You cannot reliably parse nested quantified statements via word substitution because the English word order does not reflect the order of the quantifiers. The meaning of an English sentence is not encoded in the position of the phrases for all and there exists. There is a lid for every pot and for every pot, there is a lid mean the same thing. Both express the same doubly quantified statement of the form x yp x, y. There is a solution for every problem and for every problem, there is a solution have the same meaning. Both express the same doubly quantified statement of the form x yp x, y.
6 The Perils of Word Substitution Mere word substitution may incidentally produce a correct translation, but it can just as well fail. Word substitution correctly translates x yp x, y as for all x, there exists y such that P(x,y). Word substitution incorrectly translates x yp(x, y) as there exists an x for all y such that P(x,y). The meaning expressed by that English phrase is y xp x, y, which is a different meaning than x yp x, y. A correct translation of x yp(x, y) is there exists an x such that for all y, P(x,y). The lesson bears repeating: do not attempt to understand formal nested quantified statements via literal word substitution, or try to formalize English statements that contain both an existential and a universal phrase merely by substituting the symbols and. That method is hit-or-miss.
7 Translating quantified statements (1) Let us define the predicate P by P x, y = "x loves y, where x and y represent people, and translate a quantified statement into standard English. Such a translation requires more than a literal reading of the statement. It requires us to understand the statement and then to express the meaning in a way that would be immediately comprehensible to an average person who may not have a mathematical education. Statement: x yp x, y Literal reading For all x, there exists y such that x loves y. Meaningful Translation Everyone loves someone. Observe that we don t use variable names in standard English.
8 Translating quantified statements (2) A relationship counselor is talking to a man who has had trouble on the job market. He just can't find a job that's right for him. She attempts to cheer him up by telling him, For every person, there's the perfect job out there. While he may not agree, he at least understands immediately what she's saying. From a discrete math perspective, she could also have said, Let the domain of x be all people, and the domain of y be all jobs. Let P be the proposition defined by "P(x,y) is the statement that y is the perfect job for x". Then for every x, there exists y such that P(x,y). No one talks like that, not even mathematicians. Most people would not understand it. The first statement conveys the same meaning in proper English, and would be understood by everyone. The first statement is a translation of the second into proper English. Notice that the first statement does not have any references to abstract variables. We don't use variables in English. If we want to refer to a person, we say "a person", not "x, where x is in the set of persons".
9 Translating quantified statements (3) Suppose L(x,y) is some numerical measure of how much a person x likes an object y (higher number is better). Suppose T is the set of toys. Then x T y T(y x L Joey, x > L Joey, y ) could be literally represented as There exists an x in the set of toys so that for all y in the set of toys, if y is not x, then Joey's appreciation for x is greater than Joey's appreciation for y." No one talks that way. This is gobbledygook, not an English sentence. A correct translation of the formal statement into English is Joey has a favorite toy.
10 More Translation Examples Let us use the predicate P x, y = "x loves y again and study more translation examples. Statement Literal Reading Translation x yp x, y There exists x such that for all y, x loves y. * you is used in the generic sense here, to express a general rule that holds for every person. There is someone who loves everyone. x yp x, y There exist x and y such that x loves y. Love between people exists. x yp x, y For all x and y, x loves y. Everyone loves everyone. x yp x, y For all x, there is y such that x loves y. There is always someone who loves you*. Observe again that the translations do not contain variable names. In proper English, no one uses x and y to make statements about people and their relationships.
11 Switching the order of the quantifiers Let us investigate what happens when we switch the order of the quantifiers. The following example shows that switching the order of universal and existential quantification may change the meaning of a quantified statement. Statement x yp x, y y xp x, y Translation Everyone loves someone. Someone is loved by everyone. The order of two or more quantifiers of the same type can be changed without changing the meaning: x yp x, y y xp x, y x yp x, y y xp x, y
12 Reverse Translation Examples Given the predicate P x, y = "x loves y, let us express the following statements using P: Love is always reciprocal: x y(p x, y P y, x ) Joe loves only one person: x P Joe, x y P Joe, y y = x Ishaan loves exactly two people: x y P Ishaan, x P Ishaan, y z P Ishaan, z z = x z = y People who don t love themselves don t love anyone else either: x( P x, x y P x, y )
13 The unique existential quantifier There is a variation of the existential quantifier that signifies the existence of exactly one object of a type. This quantifier is written as! or 1. Using this quantifier, we could have translated Joe loves only one person on the previous slide as 1 x P Joe, x The unique existential quantifier is derivative because its meaning can be expressed using the standard existential and universal quantifiers as exemplified on the previous page. Generally, if P is a predicate, then 1 xp x = x P x y P y y = x.
14 Universal quantification with a domain restriction Sometimes, we wish to make a statement only about all objects in a certain subset of a given domain of discourse. Such a domain restriction can be implemented in two ways. We will study an example first. The proposition Every positive real number has a real square root can be expressed as but also as x > 0 y y 2 = x x y x > 0 y 2 = x This illustrates the general rule: a domain-restricted universal quantification of a predicate is logically equivalent to the unrestricted universal quantification of a conditional in which the domain restriction is the premise, and the predicate is the conclusion. All Swedish people are tall is logically equivalent to saying It is true for all people that if they are Swedish, then they are tall.
15 Existential quantification with a domain restriction We will now study the interaction of domain restriction with existential quantification. Let us consider an example first. The proposition There is a positive real number whose square is 2 can be expressed as but also as x > 0 x 2 = 2 x x > 0 x 2 = 2 This illustrates the general rule: a domain-restricted existential quantification of a predicate is logically equivalent to the unrestricted existential quantification of the conjunction of the domain restriction and the predicate. There is a Chinese dog that is blue is logically equivalent to saying There is a dog that is Chinese and blue.
16 Domain Restricted Quantification in the Notation of Sets Using set notation that we will introduce when we learn about sets, we can give a general formula for the two different ways of expressing domain-restricted quantifications. Let us assume that S is a subdomain of a given domain of discourse D, and that P is a predicate defined on D. Then the following equivalences hold: x S P x x x S P x x S P(x) x x S P(x) (We could write x D or x D on the right side, but that is unnecessary since the default domain is the full domain of discourse D.)
17 Bound vs. Free Variables A bound variable is a variable that is subject to a quantifier. A variable that is not bound is called free. Example: in the expression xp(x, y), x is bound, y is free. Due to the free variable, xp x, y is not a proposition, but a propositional function of y. A proposition can only contain bound variables, no free variables.
18 Precedence of Quantifiers and Scope The quantifiers enjoy a higher precedence than all logical operators. Therefore, if we wish to say that for all x, both P(x) and Q(x) are true, we must use parentheses: x P x Q x The expression without parentheses, xp x Q x means ( xp x ) Q x, which is not even a proposition, but a propositional function of x, because the x in Q x is free, and not the same x as the one in xp x. You should think of the former x as a local variable that is only valid inside the parentheses. The part of an expression that a quantifier acts on is called the scope of the quantifier. In the expression xp x Q x, the scope of the universal quantifier ends at the first closing parenthesis. The x in Q x is free because it is outside the scope of the universal quantifier.
19 Logical Equivalence of Statements involving Predicates When we state the logical equivalence of two statements involving predicates, we mean that the two sides are logically equivalent regardless of the predicates and their domain. This means that in order to show logical nonequivalence, it is sufficient to come up with (a) specific predicate(s) for which the two statements in question do not share the same truth value.
20 Quantification and Negation We will now study how the quantifiers interact with negation. Let us consider an example first and assume for simplicity that all dogs are either small or large. If it false that all dogs are large, then does it follow logically that all dogs are small? The answer is no: if not every dog is large, then all we can conclude is that at least one dog must be small. This illustrates the general principle that the negation of a universal quantification is logically equivalent to the existential quantification of the negation. xp(x) x P(x) Likewise, if it is false that there exists a large dog, then we conclude that every dog must be small. This illustrates that the negation of an existential quantification is logically equivalent to the universal quantification of the negation: xp x x P x These two laws are also known as De Morgan s laws for quantifiers. The following rule is a consequence of these laws: when you move a negation symbol from left to right past several quantifiers, each quantifier changes into the opposite quantifier. Example: x y z w x + y < z + w = x y z w x + y z + w
21 The Negation of Domain Restricted Quantification (1) When you negate an apparently - domain restricted quantified statement, you must take care not to negate the domain restriction. Let us study an example first. What is the negation of All Swedes are tall.? The proper negation of that is There is at least one Swede who is not tall. The negation is not There is at least one non-swede who is tall, nor is it There is at least one non-swede who is not tall. The negation is a statement about the same set of people. This is clear if we adopt a different perspective about the problem: who says that there is a restricted domain in the first place? We can think of the set of all Swedes simply as the domain of discourse of the predicate.. is tall and then apply the rule given in the previous slide.
22 The Negation of Domain Restricted Quantification (2) Let us apply what we just learned to an example that involves an inequality. Let us find the negation of x > 1(x 2 > x) The pitfall here is the temptation to want to negate the condition x > 1. This is wrong because x > 1 merely specifies the restricted domain about which we are making a statement. We are only giving a rule about the real numbers that are larger than one, so the negation is again a rule about the real numbers that are larger than one: x > 1(x 2 x)
23 The Negation of Domain Restricted Quantification (3) Let us prove that domain restrictions don t change when we negate restricted quantified statements. We know that we can code the domain restriction in a universal quantification as the premise of a conditional: x S P x x x S P x We now apply negation rules, then rewrite the conditional using p q p q and use De Morgan: x S P x x x S P x x x S P x x x S P x x x S P x x S P x In the last step, we have used that a domain-restricted existential quantification of a predicate is logically equivalent to the unrestricted existential quantification of the conjunction of the domain restriction and the predicate. We have proved x S P x x S P x. You should prove the corresponding statement for existential quantification as an exercise.
24 Quantification and Conjunction Let us explore the interaction of the universal quantifier with conjunction using the following example: Every person has a cat and every person has a dog. Then it is logical to conclude that Every person has a cat and a dog, and the converse of that reasoning would also be valid. This illustrates the following equivalence: x(p(x) Q(x)) xp(x) xq(x) This raises the question of whether the same relationship holds for existential quantification: is x(p(x) Q(x)) logically equivalent to xp(x) xq(x)? The answer is no. To show that, we need to select specific predicates P and Q for which the two sides have different truth values. Suppose P x = "x owns a dog, Q x = "x owns a cat, and the common domain of P and Q is a set of exactly two people. One of these people only owns a dog, and the other one only owns a cat. Then the statements xp(x) and xq x are both true, and their conjunction is true as well. However, the statement x(p(x) Q(x)) is false, because there isn t one person who owns both a dog and a cat. We conclude x P x Q x xp x xq x.
25 Quantification and Disjunction Let us explore the interaction of the existential quantifier with disjunction using the following example: There is someone who has a cat, or there is someone who has a dog. Then it follows that there is someone who has a cat or a dog. Conversely, if there is someone who has a cat or a dog, then we know that There is someone who has a cat, or there is someone who has a dog. This illustrates the following equivalence: x(p(x) Q(x)) xp(x) xq(x) Naturally, we wonder whether the same relationship holds for universal quantification: is x(p(x) Q(x)) logically equivalent to xp(x) xq(x)? The answer is no. To justify, we use the same scenario as on the previous slide. Then the statements xp(x) and xq(x) are both false, because not everyone owns a dog, and not everyone owns a cat. Their disjunction is therefore false as well. However, the statement x(p(x) Q(x)) is true, because every person owns one of the two types of pet. Therefore, x P x Q x xp x xq x.
26 Summary of Logical Equivalences and Non-Equivalences xp(x) x P(x) xp x x P x x P x Q x xp x xq x x P x Q x xp x xq x x P x Q x xp x xq x x P x Q x xp x xq x
27 Another Look at Non-Equivalence We have explained why the two propositions x P x Q x and xp x xq x are not logically equivalent. Our explanation was to give a counterexample to the alleged equivalence. Perhaps you would prefer a more abstract version of this counterexample. This can be done as follows: Let the domain of discourse be the set x 1, x 2. Let P and Q be defined by the following truth table: x P(x) Q(x) x 1 T F x 2 F T Then xp(x) and xq x are true statements, and their conjunction is therefore also true, but x(p(x) Q(x)) is false.
28 Determining the truth value of nested quantified mathematical statements Let us study mathematical statements that involve nested quantifiers and determine their truth values. In the following example, let x and y represent arbitrary real numbers: x y xy = 1 This statement is false. To see that, it is helpful to think of the statement as a challenge-response game: someone else gives you the number x. You have no control over x. Your job is to respond to the x by finding a y that makes the equation xy = 1 true. If you can always win this game by doing that, then the statement above is true. If not, then the statement is false. At first glance, you might think that for any real number x, you can just pick y = 1 to satisfy xy = 1. But that thinking overlooks that x might be zero. In x fact, if your opponent picks x = 0, then no choice for y will make xy equal to 1. Therefore, you cannot force a win in this game.
29 Nested Statements, Example 2 Consider x y x + y = 1 This statement is true. For any x that the challenger gives us, we can select a y to make the equation x + y = 1 true, namely y = 1 x. Observe that without specifying the y, our explanation would have been incomplete and question-begging. Just declaring it to be so doesn t make it true. We had to produce the y. If we just say that the y exists, then we commit the error of assuming the conclusion or proof by affirmation. Also observe that the statement would not be true if the domain of discourse was changed. If we only admit positive integers for x and y, then we cannot satisfy x + y = 1.
30 Nested Statements, Example 3 Consider y x x + y = 1 This statement is false. This challenge-response game may seem like the same game as that in the previous example, but there is a crucial difference. Rather than being allowed to pick the y in response to your opponent s x, now you have to pick your y first, and commit to it. Then, your opponent is free to choose any x she wants, and for all x except one, the equation x + y = 1 is false. Inspired by this interpretation of the statement as a game, we now give the following proof of why the statement is false: Given y, there is an x, namely x = y, which makes the equation x + y = 1 false, since x + y = 0. Therefore, for the given y, x + y = 1 is not true for all x. This makes the original statement false.
31 Nested Statements, Example 4 Consider x y (xy = 1) (xy = 2) This statement is true. This may seem absurd- surely, if xy is 1, it can t also be 2? To understand why the statement is true, we must go beyond a merely intuitive understanding of the conditional and apply the exact formal definition of the conditional. Recall that if the premise of a conditional is false, the conditional is true by default. The question we should be asking ourselves therefore is, can we always respond to the challenge x with a y that makes the premise of the conditional false? The answer is that we can. No matter what x is, we can select y = 0. That forces xy to be zero, which makes the premise of the conditional false, and the conditional true. (There are many other ways to pick y in response to x to always make xy 1.)
32 Nested Statements, Example 5 Consider x y z w xy zw This is like a challenge-response game in 4 rounds. First, your opponent gives you the x. Then, you select the y. Then, your opponent gives you the z, and finally, you get to pick the w. Can you always prevail in this game and force the inequality xy zw to be true? The answer is yes. The following is a winning strategy: Given x, select y = 0. Then, for the given z, select w = 0. This makes xy zw true because both sides are zero.
33 Incorrect Generalizations and Ambiguous Quantification (1) Sometimes, people communicate carelessly that a theorem no longer holds if we weaken its premises. For example, in every right triangle with sides a, b, c (c being the hypotenuse, the side opposite to the right angle), a 2 + b 2 = c 2. The conclusion holds only for right triangles- it is false for a non-right triangle. Someone might express this fact by saying a 2 + b 2 c 2 for a general triangle. The word general is a way of expressing universal quantification, so the statement says that for any triangle with sides a,b,c, we have a 2 + b 2 c 2. This is false, because any triangle includes the right triangles. What this person was intending to say is that for a general triangle, a 2 + b 2 = c 2 is not necessarily true. It is true in some cases, false in others. The lesson here is to be careful when communicating the breakdown of generalizations of mathematical laws and to keep in mind the negation laws for the quantifiers: Not always true is not equivalent to always false. It is equivalent to false in some cases.
34 Incorrect Generalizations and Ambiguous Quantification (2) Another example of common quantifier ambiguity is the non-commutative law for matrix multiplication. Someone might say For general square matrices A, B, AB BA. What they mean by that is not that AB BA for all square matrices A, B. That is in fact false, because there are exceptional cases of square matrices A, B which commute with each other, i.e. satisfy AB = BA. For example, if A, B are diagonal, then AB = BA. What they mean is that for arbitrary A, B, the equality AB = BA is not guaranteed. It may be true, it may be false. A technically correct phrasing of the statement above would have been: It is not true that AB = BA holds for all square matrices A, B. This is logically equivalent to: There exist square matrices A, B such that AB BA.
Section Summary. Section 1.5 9/9/2014
Section 1.5 Section Summary Nested Quantifiers Order of Quantifiers Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English Translating Mathematical Statements into Statements involving Nested Quantifiers Translated
More informationMat 243 Exam 1 Review
OBJECTIVES (Review problems: on next page) 1.1 Distinguish between propositions and non-propositions. Know the truth tables (i.e., the definitions) of the logical operators,,,, and Write truth tables for
More informationBefore you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here.
Chapter 2 Mathematics and Logic Before you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here. 2.1 A Taste of Number Theory In this section, we will
More informationIntroduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190)
Introduction to Sets Logic () Instructor: Email: shenlili@yorku.ca Department of Mathematics Statistics York University Sept 18, 2014 Outline 1 2 Tautologies Definition A tautology is a compound proposition
More information2/2/2018. CS 103 Discrete Structures. Chapter 1. Propositional Logic. Chapter 1.1. Propositional Logic
CS 103 Discrete Structures Chapter 1 Propositional Logic Chapter 1.1 Propositional Logic 1 1.1 Propositional Logic Definition: A proposition :is a declarative sentence (that is, a sentence that declares
More informationTHE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 2 THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. SECTION 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Logical Form
More informationChapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. January 22, 2010
Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements January 22, 2010 Outline 1 2.1- Introduction to Predicates and Quantified Statements I 2 2.2 - Introduction to Predicates and Quantified Statements II 3 2.3
More informationSection Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier
Section 1.4 Section Summary Predicate logic Quantifiers Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier Negating Quantifiers De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers Translating English to Logic Propositional Logic
More informationPropositional Logic Not Enough
Section 1.4 Propositional Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Does it follow that Socrates is mortal? Can t be represented in propositional logic. Need a language that talks
More informationQuantifiers Here is a (true) statement about real numbers: Every real number is either rational or irrational.
Quantifiers 1-17-2008 Here is a (true) statement about real numbers: Every real number is either rational or irrational. I could try to translate the statement as follows: Let P = x is a real number Q
More informationFor all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some
Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers Assume universe of discourse is all the people who are participating in this course. Also let us assume that we know each person in the course. Consider the following
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Its Applications
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Lecture 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs (1.3-1.5) MING GAO DASE @ ECNU (for course related communications) mgao@dase.ecnu.edu.cn Sep. 19, 2017 Outline 1 Logical
More informationProofs. An (informal) proof is an essay that will persuade a logical reader that a mathematical theorem is true.
Proofs An (informal) proof is an essay that will persuade a logical reader that a mathematical theorem is true. Some Vocabulary related to Mathematical Theorems and Proofs A mathematical proof is a valid
More information3/29/2017. Logic. Propositions and logical operations. Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations
Logic Propositions and logical operations Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations 1 Propositions and logical operations A proposition is the most basic element
More informationPredicate Logic. CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo
Predicate Logic CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo c Xin He (University at Buffalo) CSE 191 Discrete Structures 1 / 22 Outline 1 From Proposition to Predicate
More informationPredicate in English. Predicates and Quantifiers. Predicate in Logic. Propositional Functions: Prelude. Propositional Function
Predicates and Quantifiers Chuck Cusack Predicate in English In English, a sentence has 2 parts: the subject and the predicate. The predicate is the part of the sentence that states something about the
More informationPredicate Logic. Predicates. Math 173 February 9, 2010
Math 173 February 9, 2010 Predicate Logic We have now seen two ways to translate English sentences into mathematical symbols. We can capture the logical form of a sentence using propositional logic: variables
More informationToday s Lecture. ICS 6B Boolean Algebra & Logic. Predicates. Chapter 1: Section 1.3. Propositions. For Example. Socrates is Mortal
ICS 6B Boolean Algebra & Logic Today s Lecture Chapter 1 Sections 1.3 & 1.4 Predicates & Quantifiers 1.3 Nested Quantifiers 1.4 Lecture Notes for Summer Quarter, 2008 Michele Rousseau Set 2 Ch. 1.3, 1.4
More informationMATH 22 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION. Lecture F: 9/18/2003
MATH 22 Lecture F: 9/18/2003 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man. One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a
More informationPredicate Logic & Quantification
Predicate Logic & Quantification Things you should do Homework 1 due today at 3pm Via gradescope. Directions posted on the website. Group homework 1 posted, due Tuesday. Groups of 1-3. We suggest 3. In
More informationFirst order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof
First order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof 1 Outline Introduction Terminology: Propositional functions; arguments; arity; universe of discourse Quantifiers Definition; using, mixing, negating
More informationMath 10850, fall 2017, University of Notre Dame
Math 10850, fall 2017, University of Notre Dame Notes on first exam September 22, 2017 The key facts The first midterm will be on Thursday, September 28, 6.15pm-7.45pm in Hayes-Healy 127. What you need
More informationSYMBOLIC LOGIC UNIT 10: SINGULAR SENTENCES
SYMBOLIC LOGIC UNIT 10: SINGULAR SENTENCES Singular Sentences name Paris is beautiful (monadic) predicate (monadic) predicate letter Bp individual constant Singular Sentences Bp These are our new simple
More informationChapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements
Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements Topics include 2.1, 2.2 Predicates and Quantified Statements, 2.3 Statements with Multiple Quantifiers, and 2.4 Arguments with Quantified Statements. cs1231y
More informationDiscrete Structures for Computer Science
Discrete Structures for Computer Science William Garrison bill@cs.pitt.edu 6311 Sennott Square Lecture #4: Predicates and Quantifiers Based on materials developed by Dr. Adam Lee Topics n Predicates n
More informationLecture 3 : Predicates and Sets DRAFT
CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 1/25/2010 Lecture 3 : Predicates and Sets Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Last time we discussed propositions, which are
More informationThinking of Nested Quantification
Section 1.5 Section Summary Nested Quantifiers Order of Quantifiers Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English Translating Mathematical Statements into Statements involving Nested Quantifiers. Translating
More informationCSI30. Chapter 1. The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Nested Quantifiers
Chapter 1. The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 1.9-1.10 Nested Quantifiers 1 Two quantifiers are nested if one is within the scope of the other. Recall one of the examples from the previous class: x ( P(x)
More informationTHE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS. Predicates and Quantified Statements I. Predicates and Quantified Statements I CHAPTER 3 SECTION 3.
CHAPTER 3 THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS SECTION 3.1 Predicates and Quantified Statements I Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Predicates
More informationPropositions. Frequently, we will use the word statement instead of proposition.
Propositional Logic Propositions A proposition is a declaration of fact that is either true or false, but not both. Examples and non-examples: One plus two equals four (proposition) Mozart is the greatest
More informationPropositional Equivalence
Propositional Equivalence Tautologies and contradictions A compound proposition that is always true, regardless of the truth values of the individual propositions involved, is called a tautology. Example:
More informationTransparencies to accompany Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Section 1.3. Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers
Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers A generalization of propositions - propositional functions or predicates.: propositions which contain variables Predicates become propositions once every variable
More informationLogical Operators. Conjunction Disjunction Negation Exclusive Or Implication Biconditional
Logical Operators Conjunction Disjunction Negation Exclusive Or Implication Biconditional 1 Statement meaning p q p implies q if p, then q if p, q when p, q whenever p, q q if p q when p q whenever p p
More informationChapter 1 Elementary Logic
2017-2018 Chapter 1 Elementary Logic The study of logic is the study of the principles and methods used in distinguishing valid arguments from those that are not valid. The aim of this chapter is to help
More informationLogic. Quantifiers. (real numbers understood). x [x is rotten in Denmark]. x<x+x 2 +1
Logic One reason for studying logic is that we need a better notation than ordinary English for expressing relationships among various assertions or hypothetical states of affairs. A solid grounding in
More informationPredicate Calculus lecture 1
Predicate Calculus lecture 1 Section 1.3 Limitation of Propositional Logic Consider the following reasoning All cats have tails Gouchi is a cat Therefore, Gouchi has tail. MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 1 MSU/CSE
More informationMathematical Logic Part Two
Mathematical Logic Part Two Outline for Today Recap from Last Time The Contrapositive Using Propositional Logic First-Order Logic First-Order Translations Recap from Last Time Recap So Far A propositional
More informationICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I
ICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I Dept. Information & Computer Sci., Originals slides by Dr. Baek and Dr. Still, adapted by J. Stelovsky Based on slides Dr. M. P. Frank and Dr. J.L. Gross
More informationLogic and Proofs. (A brief summary)
Logic and Proofs (A brief summary) Why Study Logic: To learn to prove claims/statements rigorously To be able to judge better the soundness and consistency of (others ) arguments To gain the foundations
More informationA Little Deductive Logic
A Little Deductive Logic In propositional or sentential deductive logic, we begin by specifying that we will use capital letters (like A, B, C, D, and so on) to stand in for sentences, and we assume that
More informationCS1021. Why logic? Logic about inference or argument. Start from assumptions or axioms. Make deductions according to rules of reasoning.
3: Logic Why logic? Logic about inference or argument Start from assumptions or axioms Make deductions according to rules of reasoning Logic 3-1 Why logic? (continued) If I don t buy a lottery ticket on
More informationCSCE 222 Discrete Structures for Computing. Predicate Logic. Dr. Hyunyoung Lee. !!!!! Based on slides by Andreas Klappenecker
CSCE 222 Discrete Structures for Computing Predicate Logic Dr. Hyunyoung Lee Based on slides by Andreas Klappenecker 1 Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate.
More informationCS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications. Predicate Logic Section in zybooks
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications Predicate Logic Section 1.6-1.10 in zybooks From propositional to predicate logic Let s consider the statement x is an odd number Its truth value depends
More informationExamples: P: it is not the case that P. P Q: P or Q P Q: P implies Q (if P then Q) Typical formula:
Logic: The Big Picture Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about time (and
More informationSupplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009
1 Propositional Logic Supplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009 1.1 More efficient truth table methods The method of using truth tables to prove facts about propositional formulas can be a very tedious
More informationProposi'onal Logic Not Enough
Section 1.4 Proposi'onal Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal Compare to: If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math. It is snowing. I will study
More informationSection 1.3. Let I be a set. When I is used in the following context,
Section 1.3. Let I be a set. When I is used in the following context, {B i } i I, we call I the index set. The set {B i } i I is the family of sets of the form B i where i I. One could also use set builder
More informationA Guide to Proof-Writing
A Guide to Proof-Writing 437 A Guide to Proof-Writing by Ron Morash, University of Michigan Dearborn Toward the end of Section 1.5, the text states that there is no algorithm for proving theorems.... Such
More informationSection Summary. Predicates Variables Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic Logic Programming (optional)
Predicate Logic 1 Section Summary Predicates Variables Quantifiers Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier Negating Quantifiers De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers Translating English to Logic Logic Programming
More informationLogic Overview, I. and T T T T F F F T F F F F
Logic Overview, I DEFINITIONS A statement (proposition) is a declarative sentence that can be assigned a truth value T or F, but not both. Statements are denoted by letters p, q, r, s,... The 5 basic logical
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More informationA Little Deductive Logic
A Little Deductive Logic In propositional or sentential deductive logic, we begin by specifying that we will use capital letters (like A, B, C, D, and so on) to stand in for sentences, and we assume that
More informationIntroducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents
Contents 1 1 Introduction 1 What is proof? 1 Statements, Definitions and Euler Diagrams 1 Statements 1 Definitions Our first proof Euler diagrams 4 3 Logical Connectives 5 Negation 6 Conjunction 7 Disjunction
More informationCHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
1 CHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Here, you ll learn: what it means for a logic system to be finished some strategies for constructing proofs Congratulations! Our system of
More informationPredicate Calculus - Syntax
Predicate Calculus - Syntax Lila Kari University of Waterloo Predicate Calculus - Syntax CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 26 The language L pred of Predicate Calculus - Syntax L pred, the formal language
More informationLIN1032 Formal Foundations for Linguistics
LIN1032 Formal Foundations for Lecture 5 Albert Gatt In this lecture We conclude our discussion of the logical connectives We begin our foray into predicate logic much more expressive than propositional
More information1 Predicates and Quantifiers
1 Predicates and Quantifiers We have seen how to represent properties of objects. For example, B(x) may represent that x is a student at Bryn Mawr College. Here B stands for is a student at Bryn Mawr College
More informationMathematical Logic Part One
Mathematical Logic Part One Question: How do we formalize the defnitions and reasoning we use in our proofs? Where We're Going Propositional Logic (Today) Basic logical connectives. Truth tables. Logical
More informationSection 1.1: Logical Form and Logical Equivalence
Section 1.1: Logical Form and Logical Equivalence An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion. The assertion at the end of an argument is called the conclusion,
More informationCHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC 1 Motivation and History The origins of the classical propositional logic, classical propositional calculus, as it was, and still often is called,
More informationSection 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements
Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements In the previous chapter, we studied a branch of logic called propositional logic or propositional calculus. Loosely speaking, propositional
More information! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers. ! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier. ! Negating Quantifiers. ! De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers
Sec$on Summary (K. Rosen notes for Ch. 1.4, 1.5 corrected and extended by A.Borgida)! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier! Negating Quantifiers! De Morgan s
More informationLogic and Propositional Calculus
CHAPTER 4 Logic and Propositional Calculus 4.1 INTRODUCTION Many algorithms and proofs use logical expressions such as: IF p THEN q or If p 1 AND p 2, THEN q 1 OR q 2 Therefore it is necessary to know
More informationMathematical Logic Part One
Mathematical Logic Part One Question: How do we formalize the definitions and reasoning we use in our proofs? Where We're Going Propositional Logic (oday) Basic logical connectives. ruth tables. Logical
More informationI thank the author of the examination paper on which sample paper is based. VH
I thank the author of the examination paper on which sample paper is based. VH 1. (a) Which of the following expressions is a sentence of L 1 or an abbreviation of one? If an expression is neither a sentence
More informationTheorem. For every positive integer n, the sum of the positive integers from 1 to n is n(n+1)
Week 1: Logic Lecture 1, 8/1 (Sections 1.1 and 1.3) Examples of theorems and proofs Theorem (Pythagoras). Let ABC be a right triangle, with legs of lengths a and b, and hypotenuse of length c. Then a +
More informationRecall that the expression x > 3 is not a proposition. Why?
Predicates and Quantifiers Predicates and Quantifiers 1 Recall that the expression x > 3 is not a proposition. Why? Notation: We will use the propositional function notation to denote the expression "
More information2-4: The Use of Quantifiers
2-4: The Use of Quantifiers The number x + 2 is an even integer is not a statement. When x is replaced by 1, 3 or 5 the resulting statement is false. However, when x is replaced by 2, 4 or 6 the resulting
More informationCM10196 Topic 2: Sets, Predicates, Boolean algebras
CM10196 Topic 2: Sets, Predicates, oolean algebras Guy McCusker 1W2.1 Sets Most of the things mathematicians talk about are built out of sets. The idea of a set is a simple one: a set is just a collection
More informationIII. Elementary Logic
III. Elementary Logic The Language of Mathematics While we use our natural language to transmit our mathematical ideas, the language has some undesirable features which are not acceptable in mathematics.
More informationLogic and Propositional Calculus
CHAPTER 4 Logic and Propositional Calculus 4.1 INTRODUCTION Many algorithms and proofs use logical expressions such as: IF p THEN q or If p 1 AND p 2, THEN q 1 OR q 2 Therefore it is necessary to know
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PROOFS NOTES FOR MATH Jimmy T. Arnold
AN INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PROOFS NOTES FOR MATH 3034 Jimmy T. Arnold i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: The Structure of Mathematical Statements.............................1 1.1. Statements..................................................................
More informationSection Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier
Section 1.4 Section Summary Predicate logic Quantifiers Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier Negating Quantifiers De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers Translating English to Logic Propositional Logic
More informationReal Analysis Notes Suzanne Seager 2015
Real Analysis Notes Suzanne Seager 2015 Contents Introduction... 3 Chapter 1. Ordered Fields... 3 Section 1.1 Ordered Fields... 3 Field Properties... 3 Order Properties... 4 Standard Notation for Ordered
More informationSTRATEGIES OF PROBLEM SOLVING
STRATEGIES OF PROBLEM SOLVING Second Edition Maria Nogin Department of Mathematics College of Science and Mathematics California State University, Fresno 2014 2 Chapter 1 Introduction Solving mathematical
More informationMath 3336: Discrete Mathematics Practice Problems for Exam I
Math 3336: Discrete Mathematics Practice Problems for Exam I The upcoming exam on Tuesday, February 26, will cover the material in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2*. You will be provided with a sheet containing
More informationPropositional Logic: Syntax
Logic Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about time (and programs) epistemic
More informationComputational Logic. Recall of First-Order Logic. Damiano Zanardini
Computational Logic Recall of First-Order Logic Damiano Zanardini UPM European Master in Computational Logic (EMCL) School of Computer Science Technical University of Madrid damiano@fi.upm.es Academic
More informationPredicate Logic. Andreas Klappenecker
Predicate Logic Andreas Klappenecker Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate. The set D is called the domain of P. Example Let D=Z be the set of integers.
More informationTopic #3 Predicate Logic. Predicate Logic
Predicate Logic Predicate Logic Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic that permits concisely reasoning about whole classes of entities. Propositional logic treats simple propositions (sentences)
More informationPredicate Calculus. Lila Kari. University of Waterloo. Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 59
Predicate Calculus Lila Kari University of Waterloo Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 59 Predicate Calculus Alternative names: predicate logic, first order logic, elementary logic, restricted
More informationPropositions and Proofs
Propositions and Proofs Gert Smolka, Saarland University April 25, 2018 Proposition are logical statements whose truth or falsity can be established with proofs. Coq s type theory provides us with a language
More informationAnnouncements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science
Announcements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science Read for next time Chap. 1.4-1.6 Recitation 1 is tomorrow Homework will be posted by Friday January 19, 2012 Today more logic Prof. Rodger Most
More informationPredicate Logic. Example. Statements in Predicate Logic. Some statements cannot be expressed in propositional logic, such as: Predicate Logic
Predicate Logic Predicate Logic (Rosen, Chapter 1.4-1.6) TOPICS Predicate Logic Quantifiers Logical Equivalence Predicate Proofs Some statements cannot be expressed in propositional logic, such as: All
More informationSolving Equations by Adding and Subtracting
SECTION 2.1 Solving Equations by Adding and Subtracting 2.1 OBJECTIVES 1. Determine whether a given number is a solution for an equation 2. Use the addition property to solve equations 3. Determine whether
More informationCHAPTER 1. MATHEMATICAL LOGIC 1.1 Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic
CHAPER 1 MAHEMAICAL LOGIC 1.1 undamentals of Mathematical Logic Logic is commonly known as the science of reasoning. Some of the reasons to study logic are the following: At the hardware level the design
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationAxiomatic set theory. Chapter Why axiomatic set theory?
Chapter 1 Axiomatic set theory 1.1 Why axiomatic set theory? Essentially all mathematical theories deal with sets in one way or another. In most cases, however, the use of set theory is limited to its
More informationWe have seen that the symbols,,, and can guide the logical
CHAPTER 7 Quantified Statements We have seen that the symbols,,, and can guide the logical flow of algorithms. We have learned how to use them to deconstruct many English sentences into a symbolic form.
More informationChapter 1 Review of Equations and Inequalities
Chapter 1 Review of Equations and Inequalities Part I Review of Basic Equations Recall that an equation is an expression with an equal sign in the middle. Also recall that, if a question asks you to solve
More informationLogic and Proofs. (A brief summary)
Logic and Proofs (A brief summary) Why Study Logic: To learn to prove claims/statements rigorously To be able to judge better the soundness and consistency of (others ) arguments To gain the foundations
More informationMath.3336: Discrete Mathematics. Nested Quantifiers
Math.3336: Discrete Mathematics Nested Quantifiers Instructor: Dr. Blerina Xhabli Department of Mathematics, University of Houston https://www.math.uh.edu/ blerina Email: blerina@math.uh.edu Fall 2018
More informationFoundation of proofs. Jim Hefferon.
Foundation of proofs Jim Hefferon http://joshua.smcvt.edu/proofs The need to prove In Mathematics we prove things To a person with a mathematical turn of mind, the base angles of an isoceles triangle are
More informationDay 5. Friday May 25, 2012
Day 5 Friday May 5, 01 1 Quantifiers So far, we have done math with the expectation that atoms are always either true or false. In reality though, we would like to talk about atoms like x > Whose truth
More informationLECTURE NOTES DISCRETE MATHEMATICS. Eusebius Doedel
LECTURE NOTES on DISCRETE MATHEMATICS Eusebius Doedel 1 LOGIC Introduction. First we introduce some basic concepts needed in our discussion of logic. These will be covered in more detail later. A set is
More informationComputer Science 280 Spring 2002 Homework 2 Solutions by Omar Nayeem
Computer Science 280 Spring 2002 Homework 2 Solutions by Omar Nayeem Part A 1. (a) Some dog does not have his day. (b) Some action has no equal and opposite reaction. (c) Some golfer will never be eated
More informationMathematical Logic Part Three
Mathematical Logic Part Three Recap from Last Time What is First-Order Logic? First-order logic is a logical system for reasoning about properties of objects. Augments the logical connectives from propositional
More informationPredicates and Quantifiers. Nested Quantifiers Discrete Mathematic. Chapter 1: Logic and Proof
Discrete Mathematic Chapter 1: Logic and Proof 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4 Nested Quantifiers Dr Patrick Chan School of Computer Science and Engineering South China University of Technology http://125.216.243.100/dm/
More informationChapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements. January 7, 2008
Chapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements January 7, 2008 Outline 1 1.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence 2 1.2 Conditional Statements 3 1.3 Valid and Invalid Arguments Central notion of deductive
More informationHANDOUT AND SET THEORY. Ariyadi Wijaya
HANDOUT LOGIC AND SET THEORY Ariyadi Wijaya Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science Yogyakarta State University 2009 1 Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics
More information