Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - What is wrong with this argument?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    59

    What is wrong with this argument?

    Let S(x,y) be "x is shorter than y". Given the premise S(s,Max), it follows that S(Max,Max). Then by existential generalization it follows that S(x,x), so that someone is shorter than himself.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lm6485 View Post
    Let S(x,y) be "x is shorter than y". Given the premise S(s,Max), it follows that S(Max,Max). Then by existential generalization it follows that S(x,x), so that someone is shorter than himself.
    First of all you should define the set from which x can be chosen and the set from which y can be chosen, second of all you should define Max. You haven't been specific enough for us to make sense of your question.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    A Plied Mathematician
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    From
    CT, USA
    Posts
    6,318
    Thanks
    4
    Awards
    2
    I would challenge the premise S(s,max). That could only work if S(x,y) is defined as "x is shorter than or equal to y."
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ackbeet View Post
    I would challenge the premise S(s,max). That could only work if S(x,y) is defined as "x is shorter than or equal to y."
    Note that if this is what was meant by the question (which probably is the case), the argument is valid but not sound. I still say the question was poorly posed though.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,545
    Thanks
    780
    I don't agree that one has to define sets from which x and y are chosen as well as to define Max. To do syntactic reasoning, it is enough to know that Max is a constant in the language. What is crucial, however, is that the original post omitted two essential quantifiers. The expression S(s,Max) is not a closed formula (it has a free variable s) and is not a proposition. It is not obvious that one can conclude S(Max, Max). Indeed, it may happen that S(s,Max) is itself derived from some open assumptions, or it may be an open assumption. If any of those assumptions contains s free, then one cannot substitute Max for s without changing that assumption as well. Thus, it is not the case that S(s, Max) derives \exists x\, S(x,x). It is also misleading to omit the existential quantifier from the last formula.

    When I see a logic formula with a free variable that has not been properly introduced, I tend to stop and ask what this variable stands for.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    I don't agree that one has to define sets from which x and y are chosen as well as to define Max. To do syntactic reasoning, it is enough to know that Max is a constant in the language. What is crucial, however, is that the original post omitted two essential quantifiers. The expression S(s,Max) is not a closed formula (it has a free variable s) and is not a proposition. It is not obvious that one can conclude S(Max, Max). Indeed, it may happen that S(s,Max) is itself derived from some open assumptions, or it may be an open assumption. If any of those assumptions contains s free, then one cannot substitute Max for s without changing that assumption as well. Thus, it is not the case that S(s, Max) derives \exists x\, S(x,x). It is also misleading to omit the existential quantifier from the last formula.

    When I see a logic formula with a free variable that has not been properly introduced, I tend to stop and ask what this variable stands for.
    Well I said that mainly because, if S is a subset of AxB with A and B finite well ordered sets, where max(A) < max(B), and if S(max,max) means S(max(A),max(B)), then the problem with the argument is of a different nature, but that's likely just me being silly.

    Oddly enough I was fine with assuming there was an omitted "for all s in X" (where S is a subset of XxX) for the first part, and "there exists x in X" for the second part, particularly the second part since the text had both "existential generalization" and "someone" in it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. [SOLVED] am I wrong here or is my textbook wrong??
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 25th 2011, 05:13 PM
  2. argument of z.
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 7th 2010, 11:49 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 12th 2009, 02:15 AM
  4. Wrong answer key or wrong me ?
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 2nd 2008, 04:42 AM
  5. what's wrong with this argument?
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 9th 2008, 11:24 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum