Results 1 to 7 of 7

Math Help - Logical expressions

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502

    Logical expressions

    Let R(x) be an open sentence over a domain S.

    \forall S, R(x) is a false statement and that the set T of counterexamples is a proper subset of S.

    If I let R(x) be true and \sim R(x) be false, is

     \forall x ( x \in T \subset S \Rightarrow \sim R(x)) a correct expression?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,910
    Thanks
    1759
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by novice View Post
    Let R(x) be an open sentence over a domain S.

    \forall S, R(x) is a false statement and that the set T of counterexamples is a proper subset of S.

    If I let R(x) be true and \sim R(x) be false, is

     \forall x ( x \in T \subset S \Rightarrow \sim R(x)) a correct expression?
    I have absolutely no idea what any of that says.
    Is that something you have written yourself?
    If not can you post the exact question as it appears wherever you found it?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    I have absolutely no idea what any of that says.
    Is that something you have written yourself?
    If not can you post the exact question as it appears wherever you found it?
    Exercise 5.34, from Mathematical Proofs by Chartrand, page 125.

    Let R(x) be an open sentence over a domain S. Suppose that \forall x \in S, R(x) is a false statement and that the set T of counterexamples is a proper subset. Show that there exists a nonempty subset W of S such that \forall x \in W, R(x) is true.

    My attempt:

    Let R(x) be true and R(x) be false. Then

    \forall x (x \in T \subsetneq S \Rightarrow \sim R(x))

    Since T \subsetneq S, it follows that S-T \not=\emptyset.

    The negation of the statment is

    \exists x (x \in S-t \Rightarrow R(x)) or equivalently

    \exists x (x \in W \Rightarrow R(x)), where W = S-T \not= \emptyset

    I don't know how to get
    \forall x \in W, R(x) is true.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,910
    Thanks
    1759
    Awards
    1
    I think that is self-contradictory problem.
    How can an open sentence be false \left( {\forall x \in S} \right)?
    And then true on some nonempty subset of S.

    I don’t think I have ever seen that textbook. There may be some way it is using the expression “the set T of counterexamples is a proper subset ” .
    I find that idea a bit odd.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    I think that is self-contradictory problem.
    How can an open sentence be false \left( {\forall x \in S} \right)?
    And then true on some nonempty subset of S.

    I don’t think I have ever seen that textbook. There may be some way it is using the expression “the set T of counterexamples is a proper subset ” .
    I find that idea a bit odd.
    Plato,

    I absolutely agree with you, but being a novice I thought it better to have you look at it. There were two proofs that I found laughable, but over all it's not a bad book.

    Thanks for you time.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,559
    Thanks
    785
    is a correct expression?
    Sorry, this depends on the definition of a correct expression. I assume you are talking about syntactically well-formed expressions, regardless of whether they are true or false. This again depends on the definition of an expression, or a formula.

    Usually, x\in T\subset S is not considered a well-formed formula, though it makes sense to view it as an abbreviation for x\in T\land T\subset S. In fact, I don't think " {}\subset S" part is needed in the formula at all.

    Concerning semantics, this formula is true according to the description of R, T and S.

    The negation of the statment is

    \exists x (x \in S-t \Rightarrow R(x))
    No, if you are talking about the negation of \forall x\,(x\in T\Rightarrow\sim R(x)), it is \exists x\,(x\in T\land R(x)).

    The formula \forall x\,(x\in W\Rightarrow R(x)) does not follow from \forall x\,(x\in T\Rightarrow\sim R(x)), or its negation, alone. The latter formula says that elements of T make R false, but it does not say anything about elements outside T.

    On the other hand, \forall x\,(x\in T\Leftrightarrow\sim R(x)) does imply \forall x\,(x\in W\Rightarrow R(x)) (in fact, the implication to the left is enough).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    Sorry, this depends on the definition of a correct expression. I assume you are talking about syntactically well-formed expressions, regardless of whether they are true or false. This again depends on the definition of an expression, or a formula.

    Usually, x\in T\subset S is not considered a well-formed formula, though it makes sense to view it as an abbreviation for x\in T\land T\subset S. In fact, I don't think " {}\subset S" part is needed in the formula at all.

    Concerning semantics, this formula is true according to the description of R, T and S.

    No, if you are talking about the negation of \forall x\,(x\in T\Rightarrow\sim R(x)), it is \exists x\,(x\in T\land R(x)).

    The formula \forall x\,(x\in W\Rightarrow R(x)) does not follow from \forall x\,(x\in T\Rightarrow\sim R(x)), or its negation, alone. The latter formula says that elements of T make R false, but it does not say anything about elements outside T.

    On the other hand, \forall x\,(x\in T\Leftrightarrow\sim R(x)) does imply \forall x\,(x\in W\Rightarrow R(x)) (in fact, the implication to the left is enough).

    Thank you for pointing at the well formed formula. I noticed that my math book has violated wff left and right. I read a book on logic over a Christmas holiday out of curiosity. I finished reading the entire book in two weeks. Ha ha, now you know what quality education I obtained in logic.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. logical expressions
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 26th 2010, 10:23 AM
  2. Prove/disprove using logical using logical arguments
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 24th 2010, 07:29 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 21st 2010, 08:45 AM
  4. Is it logical???
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 8th 2009, 09:10 PM
  5. Rational Expressions and Radical Expressions
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 9th 2009, 10:29 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum