Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Establish these logical equivalences, where x does not occur as a free variable in A. Assume that the domain is nonempty.

a)\(\forall x\left( {A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}P{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)} \right){\rm{ }} \equiv {\rm{ }}A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}\forall xP{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)\)

b) \(\exists x\left( {A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}P{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)} \right){\rm{ }} \equiv {\rm{ }}A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}\exists xP{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)\)

Short Answer

Expert verified

a) \(\forall x(A \to P(x)) \equiv A \to \forall xP(x)\) are both propositions are equivalent

b) \(\exists x(A \to P(x)) \equiv A \to \exists xP(x)\) are both propositions are equivalent

Step by step solution

01

Logical Equivalences

\(p \to q \equiv \neg p \vee q\)

02

\(\forall x\left( {A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}P{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)} \right){\rm{ }} \equiv {\rm{ }}A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}\forall xP{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)\)

a) \(A \to \forall xP(x)\)is logically equivalent with \(\neg A \vee (\forall xP(x))\)by logical equivalence \((1)\).

\(A \to \forall xP(x) \equiv \neg A \vee (\forall xP(x))\)

According to exercise \(46\) this is logically equivalent with \(\forall x(\neg A \vee P(x))\)which is also logically equivalent with \(\forall x(A \to P(x))\)by logical equivalence\((1)\).

\( \equiv \forall x(\neg A \vee P(x))\)

\( \equiv \forall x(A \to P(x))\)

And thus \(A \to \forall xP(x)\)is logically equivalent with \(\forall x(A \to P(x))\)

03

\(\exists x\left( {A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}P{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)} \right){\rm{ }} \equiv {\rm{ }}A{\rm{ }} \to {\rm{ }}\exists xP{\rm{ }}\left( x \right)\)

b) \(A \to \exists xP(x)\)is logically equivalent with \(\neg A \vee (\exists xP(x))\) by logical equivalence \((1)\).

\(A \to \exists xP(x) \equiv \neg A \vee (\exists xP(x))\)

According to exercise\(46\)this is logically equivalent with\(\exists x(\neg A \vee P(x))\)which is also logically equivalent with\(\exists x(A \to P(x))\)by logical equivalence\((1)\).

\( \equiv \exists x(\neg A \vee P(x))\)

\( \equiv \exists x(A \to P(x))n\)

And thus \(A \to \exists xP(x)\)is logically equivalent with \(\exists x(A \to P(x)).\)

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Find the dual of each of these compound propositions.

a)pโˆจยฌq

b)pโˆง(qโˆจ(rโˆงT))

c)(pโˆงยฌq)โˆจ(qโˆงF)

The police have three suspects for the murder of Mr. Cooper: Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Williams. Smith, Jones, and Williams each declare that they did not kill Cooper. Smith also states that Cooper was a friend of Jones and that Williams disliked him. Jones also states that he did not know Cooper and that he was out of town the day Cooper was killed. Williams also states that he saw both Smith and Jones with Cooper the day of the killing and that either Smith or Jones must have killed him. Can you determine who the murderer was if

a) One of the three men is guilty, the two innocent men are telling the truth, but the statements of the guilty man may or may not be true?

b) Innocent men do not lie?

Suppose that a truth table in propositional variables is specified. Show that a compound proposition with this truth table can be formed by taking the disjunction of conjunctions of the variables or their negations, with one conjunction included for each combination of values for which the compound proposition is true. The resulting compound proposition is said to be in disjunctive normal form

Let P(x),Q(x),and R(x)be the statements โ€œxis a clear explanation,โ€ โ€œxis satisfactory,โ€ and โ€œxis an excuse,โ€ respectively. Suppose that the domain for x consists of all English text. Express each of these statements using quantifiers, logical connectives, and P(x),Q(x),and R(x).

a) All clear explanations are satisfactory.

b) Some excuses are unsatisfactory.

c) Some excuses are not clear explanations.

d) Does (c) follow from (a) and (b)?

Explain, without using a truth table, why (pโˆจqโˆจr)โˆง(ยฌpโˆจยฌqโˆจยฌr)is true when at least one of p,q, and r is true and at least one is false, but is false when all three variables have the same truth value.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free