Translate from english to predicate logic












0












$begingroup$


I'm trying to translate the following $3$ sentences from English to predicate logic.




If anyone on the plane is small, then everyone on the plane is not from USA.





  • $A$ = on the plane

  • $B$ = is small

  • $C$ = from USA


$$forall x left( A(x) to B(x) to (neg square x A(x) to C(x) )right)$$




People on the plane don't like people on the ground.





  • $A$ = people on the plane

  • $B$ = don’t like

  • $C$ = people on the ground


∀x∃y(A(x,y) →B = C(x,y))




Everyone on the plane loves each other, but no one else.





  • $A$ = Everyone on the plane

  • $B$ = loves each other

  • $C$ = but no one else


∀x(A love (B)→ ¬∃x love(C))



Is this correct? If not, what would the correct answers be? I've been trying for hours and this is the best I could come up with. Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    What does $square$ denote?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Mar 13 '18 at 13:26
















0












$begingroup$


I'm trying to translate the following $3$ sentences from English to predicate logic.




If anyone on the plane is small, then everyone on the plane is not from USA.





  • $A$ = on the plane

  • $B$ = is small

  • $C$ = from USA


$$forall x left( A(x) to B(x) to (neg square x A(x) to C(x) )right)$$




People on the plane don't like people on the ground.





  • $A$ = people on the plane

  • $B$ = don’t like

  • $C$ = people on the ground


∀x∃y(A(x,y) →B = C(x,y))




Everyone on the plane loves each other, but no one else.





  • $A$ = Everyone on the plane

  • $B$ = loves each other

  • $C$ = but no one else


∀x(A love (B)→ ¬∃x love(C))



Is this correct? If not, what would the correct answers be? I've been trying for hours and this is the best I could come up with. Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    What does $square$ denote?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Mar 13 '18 at 13:26














0












0








0


1



$begingroup$


I'm trying to translate the following $3$ sentences from English to predicate logic.




If anyone on the plane is small, then everyone on the plane is not from USA.





  • $A$ = on the plane

  • $B$ = is small

  • $C$ = from USA


$$forall x left( A(x) to B(x) to (neg square x A(x) to C(x) )right)$$




People on the plane don't like people on the ground.





  • $A$ = people on the plane

  • $B$ = don’t like

  • $C$ = people on the ground


∀x∃y(A(x,y) →B = C(x,y))




Everyone on the plane loves each other, but no one else.





  • $A$ = Everyone on the plane

  • $B$ = loves each other

  • $C$ = but no one else


∀x(A love (B)→ ¬∃x love(C))



Is this correct? If not, what would the correct answers be? I've been trying for hours and this is the best I could come up with. Thank you!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm trying to translate the following $3$ sentences from English to predicate logic.




If anyone on the plane is small, then everyone on the plane is not from USA.





  • $A$ = on the plane

  • $B$ = is small

  • $C$ = from USA


$$forall x left( A(x) to B(x) to (neg square x A(x) to C(x) )right)$$




People on the plane don't like people on the ground.





  • $A$ = people on the plane

  • $B$ = don’t like

  • $C$ = people on the ground


∀x∃y(A(x,y) →B = C(x,y))




Everyone on the plane loves each other, but no one else.





  • $A$ = Everyone on the plane

  • $B$ = loves each other

  • $C$ = but no one else


∀x(A love (B)→ ¬∃x love(C))



Is this correct? If not, what would the correct answers be? I've been trying for hours and this is the best I could come up with. Thank you!







first-order-logic predicate-logic logic-translation






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 31 '18 at 21:49









Bram28

62.3k44793




62.3k44793










asked Mar 12 '18 at 12:07









Angelica33Angelica33

474




474








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    What does $square$ denote?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Mar 13 '18 at 13:26














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32










  • $begingroup$
    In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 12 '18 at 13:32












  • $begingroup$
    What does $square$ denote?
    $endgroup$
    – Rodrigo de Azevedo
    Mar 13 '18 at 13:26








1




1




$begingroup$
You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 12:27




$begingroup$
You are mixing propositions (from propositional calculus) like A = Everyone on the plane and predicates, like A = on the plane. It will never work that way.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 12:27












$begingroup$
In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 13:32




$begingroup$
In 2 you are using B= doesn’t like; to "embed" the negation sign into the predicate can cause problems.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 13:32












$begingroup$
In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 13:32






$begingroup$
In 2 you have B = C(x,y), i.e. you are "equating" a predicate without arguments to a formula: it is wrong. The equality sign needs terms (i.e. "names"): either variables or constants.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 12 '18 at 13:32














$begingroup$
What does $square$ denote?
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Mar 13 '18 at 13:26




$begingroup$
What does $square$ denote?
$endgroup$
– Rodrigo de Azevedo
Mar 13 '18 at 13:26










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Regarding number 1:



First, as Bram28 mentions, there's a bit of an issue about scope (i.e. where you've put the parentheses) here. You can see that something's gone wrong by noticing that the string $A(x) to B(x) to$ appears in the middle of your predicate-logic expression. But there's no way to get a string like that by legitimate expression-forming operations! Remember, arrows always show up in expressions of the form $(P to Q)$: so you could make something of the form $((P to Q) to R)$ or $(P to (Q to R))$, but not of the form $(P to Q to R)$. (A caveat: people will often write expressions like $(P land Q land R)$. But this is only acceptable because $((P land Q) land R)$ is logically equivalent to $(P land (Q land R))$: since $((P to Q) to R)$ is not equivalent to $(P to (Q to R))$, you can't do that here).



So what should you do? First, notice that the basic form of that sentence is "if P, then Q". So we know that we're looking for something of the form
$$(P to Q)$$
Next, let's figure out what $P$ is. The English statement is "anyone on the plane is small". Now, you've gone for the universal quantifier here, which would mean that this means the same thing as "everyone on the plane is small". In this context, though, the phrase "if anyone on the plane is small" is the same thing as saying "if someone on the plane is small", i.e. if there is someone who is both on the plane and small. So we should use the existential quantifier, and replace $P$ by $exists x (Ax land Bx)$. (This is a difficult one, since "any" in English is ambiguous - in most contexts "any" is a universal quantification (e.g. "any dream will do", "for any natural number $n$, ..."). It tends to be read as an existential quantification when it's in a conditional like this, though. For another example, consider "if any here knows of any reason why these two should not be wed, let them speak now...": this applies if there is some person who knows of some reason, not if everyone knows of every reason!)



Now for $Q$, "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Again, look out for scope here: there's a difference between "not everyone on the plane is from USA" and "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Your predicate formula, $lnotforall x (Ax to Cx)$, is a formalisation of the former phrase. To formalise the latter, think of it as saying "for every person on the plane, that person is not from USA": or even more explicitly, "for every person, if they are on the plane, they are not from the USA". So we replace $Q$ by $forall x (Ax to lnot Cx)$. So, replacing $P$ and $Q$ by these, we get for the whole thing
$$(exists x (Ax land Bx) to forall x (Ax to lnot Cx))$$



I won't go through 2 and 3 in detail like this, since you should hopefully be able to use the above as a guide to figure out what to do. But here are suggestions for what to formalise:




  • Let $Ax$ symbolise "$x$ is on the plane"

  • Let $Lxy$ symbolise "$x$ likes $y$"

  • Let $Gx$ symbolise "$x$ is on the ground"

  • Let $Hxy$ symbolise "$x$ loves $y$"


These should be all the predicates you need: in particular, you don't need a predicate for phrases like "but no one else".






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    You're very close on the first one, but it does have a few problems:



    First, recognize that the statement is an 'if ... then ...' statement, where both the 'if' part and the 'then' part are quantificational statements. Also, 'if there is any one ...' means: 'If there is someone ...'. So, break it up as:



    'Someone on the plane is small' $rightarrow$ 'everyone on the plane is not from the USA'



    Now, 'Someone on the plane is small' translates to:



    $exists x (A(x) land B(x))$



    the second subsentence is:



    $forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



    OK, so plug those in and you get:



    $exists x (A(x) land B(x)) rightarrow forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



    Also, I would recommend that you use more 'informative' letters. For example, use:



    $S(x)$: '$x$ is small'



    $P(x)$: '$x$ is on the plane'



    $U(x)$: '$x$ is from USA



    So then the sentence becomes:



    $exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2687713%2ftranslate-from-english-to-predicate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0












      $begingroup$

      Regarding number 1:



      First, as Bram28 mentions, there's a bit of an issue about scope (i.e. where you've put the parentheses) here. You can see that something's gone wrong by noticing that the string $A(x) to B(x) to$ appears in the middle of your predicate-logic expression. But there's no way to get a string like that by legitimate expression-forming operations! Remember, arrows always show up in expressions of the form $(P to Q)$: so you could make something of the form $((P to Q) to R)$ or $(P to (Q to R))$, but not of the form $(P to Q to R)$. (A caveat: people will often write expressions like $(P land Q land R)$. But this is only acceptable because $((P land Q) land R)$ is logically equivalent to $(P land (Q land R))$: since $((P to Q) to R)$ is not equivalent to $(P to (Q to R))$, you can't do that here).



      So what should you do? First, notice that the basic form of that sentence is "if P, then Q". So we know that we're looking for something of the form
      $$(P to Q)$$
      Next, let's figure out what $P$ is. The English statement is "anyone on the plane is small". Now, you've gone for the universal quantifier here, which would mean that this means the same thing as "everyone on the plane is small". In this context, though, the phrase "if anyone on the plane is small" is the same thing as saying "if someone on the plane is small", i.e. if there is someone who is both on the plane and small. So we should use the existential quantifier, and replace $P$ by $exists x (Ax land Bx)$. (This is a difficult one, since "any" in English is ambiguous - in most contexts "any" is a universal quantification (e.g. "any dream will do", "for any natural number $n$, ..."). It tends to be read as an existential quantification when it's in a conditional like this, though. For another example, consider "if any here knows of any reason why these two should not be wed, let them speak now...": this applies if there is some person who knows of some reason, not if everyone knows of every reason!)



      Now for $Q$, "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Again, look out for scope here: there's a difference between "not everyone on the plane is from USA" and "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Your predicate formula, $lnotforall x (Ax to Cx)$, is a formalisation of the former phrase. To formalise the latter, think of it as saying "for every person on the plane, that person is not from USA": or even more explicitly, "for every person, if they are on the plane, they are not from the USA". So we replace $Q$ by $forall x (Ax to lnot Cx)$. So, replacing $P$ and $Q$ by these, we get for the whole thing
      $$(exists x (Ax land Bx) to forall x (Ax to lnot Cx))$$



      I won't go through 2 and 3 in detail like this, since you should hopefully be able to use the above as a guide to figure out what to do. But here are suggestions for what to formalise:




      • Let $Ax$ symbolise "$x$ is on the plane"

      • Let $Lxy$ symbolise "$x$ likes $y$"

      • Let $Gx$ symbolise "$x$ is on the ground"

      • Let $Hxy$ symbolise "$x$ loves $y$"


      These should be all the predicates you need: in particular, you don't need a predicate for phrases like "but no one else".






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        0












        $begingroup$

        Regarding number 1:



        First, as Bram28 mentions, there's a bit of an issue about scope (i.e. where you've put the parentheses) here. You can see that something's gone wrong by noticing that the string $A(x) to B(x) to$ appears in the middle of your predicate-logic expression. But there's no way to get a string like that by legitimate expression-forming operations! Remember, arrows always show up in expressions of the form $(P to Q)$: so you could make something of the form $((P to Q) to R)$ or $(P to (Q to R))$, but not of the form $(P to Q to R)$. (A caveat: people will often write expressions like $(P land Q land R)$. But this is only acceptable because $((P land Q) land R)$ is logically equivalent to $(P land (Q land R))$: since $((P to Q) to R)$ is not equivalent to $(P to (Q to R))$, you can't do that here).



        So what should you do? First, notice that the basic form of that sentence is "if P, then Q". So we know that we're looking for something of the form
        $$(P to Q)$$
        Next, let's figure out what $P$ is. The English statement is "anyone on the plane is small". Now, you've gone for the universal quantifier here, which would mean that this means the same thing as "everyone on the plane is small". In this context, though, the phrase "if anyone on the plane is small" is the same thing as saying "if someone on the plane is small", i.e. if there is someone who is both on the plane and small. So we should use the existential quantifier, and replace $P$ by $exists x (Ax land Bx)$. (This is a difficult one, since "any" in English is ambiguous - in most contexts "any" is a universal quantification (e.g. "any dream will do", "for any natural number $n$, ..."). It tends to be read as an existential quantification when it's in a conditional like this, though. For another example, consider "if any here knows of any reason why these two should not be wed, let them speak now...": this applies if there is some person who knows of some reason, not if everyone knows of every reason!)



        Now for $Q$, "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Again, look out for scope here: there's a difference between "not everyone on the plane is from USA" and "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Your predicate formula, $lnotforall x (Ax to Cx)$, is a formalisation of the former phrase. To formalise the latter, think of it as saying "for every person on the plane, that person is not from USA": or even more explicitly, "for every person, if they are on the plane, they are not from the USA". So we replace $Q$ by $forall x (Ax to lnot Cx)$. So, replacing $P$ and $Q$ by these, we get for the whole thing
        $$(exists x (Ax land Bx) to forall x (Ax to lnot Cx))$$



        I won't go through 2 and 3 in detail like this, since you should hopefully be able to use the above as a guide to figure out what to do. But here are suggestions for what to formalise:




        • Let $Ax$ symbolise "$x$ is on the plane"

        • Let $Lxy$ symbolise "$x$ likes $y$"

        • Let $Gx$ symbolise "$x$ is on the ground"

        • Let $Hxy$ symbolise "$x$ loves $y$"


        These should be all the predicates you need: in particular, you don't need a predicate for phrases like "but no one else".






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Regarding number 1:



          First, as Bram28 mentions, there's a bit of an issue about scope (i.e. where you've put the parentheses) here. You can see that something's gone wrong by noticing that the string $A(x) to B(x) to$ appears in the middle of your predicate-logic expression. But there's no way to get a string like that by legitimate expression-forming operations! Remember, arrows always show up in expressions of the form $(P to Q)$: so you could make something of the form $((P to Q) to R)$ or $(P to (Q to R))$, but not of the form $(P to Q to R)$. (A caveat: people will often write expressions like $(P land Q land R)$. But this is only acceptable because $((P land Q) land R)$ is logically equivalent to $(P land (Q land R))$: since $((P to Q) to R)$ is not equivalent to $(P to (Q to R))$, you can't do that here).



          So what should you do? First, notice that the basic form of that sentence is "if P, then Q". So we know that we're looking for something of the form
          $$(P to Q)$$
          Next, let's figure out what $P$ is. The English statement is "anyone on the plane is small". Now, you've gone for the universal quantifier here, which would mean that this means the same thing as "everyone on the plane is small". In this context, though, the phrase "if anyone on the plane is small" is the same thing as saying "if someone on the plane is small", i.e. if there is someone who is both on the plane and small. So we should use the existential quantifier, and replace $P$ by $exists x (Ax land Bx)$. (This is a difficult one, since "any" in English is ambiguous - in most contexts "any" is a universal quantification (e.g. "any dream will do", "for any natural number $n$, ..."). It tends to be read as an existential quantification when it's in a conditional like this, though. For another example, consider "if any here knows of any reason why these two should not be wed, let them speak now...": this applies if there is some person who knows of some reason, not if everyone knows of every reason!)



          Now for $Q$, "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Again, look out for scope here: there's a difference between "not everyone on the plane is from USA" and "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Your predicate formula, $lnotforall x (Ax to Cx)$, is a formalisation of the former phrase. To formalise the latter, think of it as saying "for every person on the plane, that person is not from USA": or even more explicitly, "for every person, if they are on the plane, they are not from the USA". So we replace $Q$ by $forall x (Ax to lnot Cx)$. So, replacing $P$ and $Q$ by these, we get for the whole thing
          $$(exists x (Ax land Bx) to forall x (Ax to lnot Cx))$$



          I won't go through 2 and 3 in detail like this, since you should hopefully be able to use the above as a guide to figure out what to do. But here are suggestions for what to formalise:




          • Let $Ax$ symbolise "$x$ is on the plane"

          • Let $Lxy$ symbolise "$x$ likes $y$"

          • Let $Gx$ symbolise "$x$ is on the ground"

          • Let $Hxy$ symbolise "$x$ loves $y$"


          These should be all the predicates you need: in particular, you don't need a predicate for phrases like "but no one else".






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Regarding number 1:



          First, as Bram28 mentions, there's a bit of an issue about scope (i.e. where you've put the parentheses) here. You can see that something's gone wrong by noticing that the string $A(x) to B(x) to$ appears in the middle of your predicate-logic expression. But there's no way to get a string like that by legitimate expression-forming operations! Remember, arrows always show up in expressions of the form $(P to Q)$: so you could make something of the form $((P to Q) to R)$ or $(P to (Q to R))$, but not of the form $(P to Q to R)$. (A caveat: people will often write expressions like $(P land Q land R)$. But this is only acceptable because $((P land Q) land R)$ is logically equivalent to $(P land (Q land R))$: since $((P to Q) to R)$ is not equivalent to $(P to (Q to R))$, you can't do that here).



          So what should you do? First, notice that the basic form of that sentence is "if P, then Q". So we know that we're looking for something of the form
          $$(P to Q)$$
          Next, let's figure out what $P$ is. The English statement is "anyone on the plane is small". Now, you've gone for the universal quantifier here, which would mean that this means the same thing as "everyone on the plane is small". In this context, though, the phrase "if anyone on the plane is small" is the same thing as saying "if someone on the plane is small", i.e. if there is someone who is both on the plane and small. So we should use the existential quantifier, and replace $P$ by $exists x (Ax land Bx)$. (This is a difficult one, since "any" in English is ambiguous - in most contexts "any" is a universal quantification (e.g. "any dream will do", "for any natural number $n$, ..."). It tends to be read as an existential quantification when it's in a conditional like this, though. For another example, consider "if any here knows of any reason why these two should not be wed, let them speak now...": this applies if there is some person who knows of some reason, not if everyone knows of every reason!)



          Now for $Q$, "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Again, look out for scope here: there's a difference between "not everyone on the plane is from USA" and "everyone on the plane is not from USA". Your predicate formula, $lnotforall x (Ax to Cx)$, is a formalisation of the former phrase. To formalise the latter, think of it as saying "for every person on the plane, that person is not from USA": or even more explicitly, "for every person, if they are on the plane, they are not from the USA". So we replace $Q$ by $forall x (Ax to lnot Cx)$. So, replacing $P$ and $Q$ by these, we get for the whole thing
          $$(exists x (Ax land Bx) to forall x (Ax to lnot Cx))$$



          I won't go through 2 and 3 in detail like this, since you should hopefully be able to use the above as a guide to figure out what to do. But here are suggestions for what to formalise:




          • Let $Ax$ symbolise "$x$ is on the plane"

          • Let $Lxy$ symbolise "$x$ likes $y$"

          • Let $Gx$ symbolise "$x$ is on the ground"

          • Let $Hxy$ symbolise "$x$ loves $y$"


          These should be all the predicates you need: in particular, you don't need a predicate for phrases like "but no one else".







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 13 '18 at 11:51









          anygivenpointanygivenpoint

          1305




          1305























              0












              $begingroup$

              You're very close on the first one, but it does have a few problems:



              First, recognize that the statement is an 'if ... then ...' statement, where both the 'if' part and the 'then' part are quantificational statements. Also, 'if there is any one ...' means: 'If there is someone ...'. So, break it up as:



              'Someone on the plane is small' $rightarrow$ 'everyone on the plane is not from the USA'



              Now, 'Someone on the plane is small' translates to:



              $exists x (A(x) land B(x))$



              the second subsentence is:



              $forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



              OK, so plug those in and you get:



              $exists x (A(x) land B(x)) rightarrow forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



              Also, I would recommend that you use more 'informative' letters. For example, use:



              $S(x)$: '$x$ is small'



              $P(x)$: '$x$ is on the plane'



              $U(x)$: '$x$ is from USA



              So then the sentence becomes:



              $exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                You're very close on the first one, but it does have a few problems:



                First, recognize that the statement is an 'if ... then ...' statement, where both the 'if' part and the 'then' part are quantificational statements. Also, 'if there is any one ...' means: 'If there is someone ...'. So, break it up as:



                'Someone on the plane is small' $rightarrow$ 'everyone on the plane is not from the USA'



                Now, 'Someone on the plane is small' translates to:



                $exists x (A(x) land B(x))$



                the second subsentence is:



                $forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                OK, so plug those in and you get:



                $exists x (A(x) land B(x)) rightarrow forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                Also, I would recommend that you use more 'informative' letters. For example, use:



                $S(x)$: '$x$ is small'



                $P(x)$: '$x$ is on the plane'



                $U(x)$: '$x$ is from USA



                So then the sentence becomes:



                $exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  You're very close on the first one, but it does have a few problems:



                  First, recognize that the statement is an 'if ... then ...' statement, where both the 'if' part and the 'then' part are quantificational statements. Also, 'if there is any one ...' means: 'If there is someone ...'. So, break it up as:



                  'Someone on the plane is small' $rightarrow$ 'everyone on the plane is not from the USA'



                  Now, 'Someone on the plane is small' translates to:



                  $exists x (A(x) land B(x))$



                  the second subsentence is:



                  $forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                  OK, so plug those in and you get:



                  $exists x (A(x) land B(x)) rightarrow forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                  Also, I would recommend that you use more 'informative' letters. For example, use:



                  $S(x)$: '$x$ is small'



                  $P(x)$: '$x$ is on the plane'



                  $U(x)$: '$x$ is from USA



                  So then the sentence becomes:



                  $exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  You're very close on the first one, but it does have a few problems:



                  First, recognize that the statement is an 'if ... then ...' statement, where both the 'if' part and the 'then' part are quantificational statements. Also, 'if there is any one ...' means: 'If there is someone ...'. So, break it up as:



                  'Someone on the plane is small' $rightarrow$ 'everyone on the plane is not from the USA'



                  Now, 'Someone on the plane is small' translates to:



                  $exists x (A(x) land B(x))$



                  the second subsentence is:



                  $forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                  OK, so plug those in and you get:



                  $exists x (A(x) land B(x)) rightarrow forall x (A(x) rightarrow neg C(x))$



                  Also, I would recommend that you use more 'informative' letters. For example, use:



                  $S(x)$: '$x$ is small'



                  $P(x)$: '$x$ is on the plane'



                  $U(x)$: '$x$ is from USA



                  So then the sentence becomes:



                  $exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 13 '18 at 13:12

























                  answered Mar 12 '18 at 14:41









                  Bram28Bram28

                  62.3k44793




                  62.3k44793






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2687713%2ftranslate-from-english-to-predicate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wiesbaden

                      Marschland

                      Dieringhausen