Translate from english to predicate logic
$begingroup$
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!
first-order-logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
first-order-logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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!
first-order-logic predicate-logic logic-translation
$endgroup$
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
first-order-logic predicate-logic logic-translation
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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".
$endgroup$
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".
answered Mar 13 '18 at 11:51
anygivenpointanygivenpoint
1305
1305
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
$exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$
$endgroup$
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:
$exists x (P(x) land S(x)) rightarrow forall x (P(x) rightarrow neg U(x))$
edited Mar 13 '18 at 13:12
answered Mar 12 '18 at 14:41
Bram28Bram28
62.3k44793
62.3k44793
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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