There is no definition for the Bx predicate. Moreover, 10 and 13 use Bxx and Bxy.
Check 3-6, 9, 11.
I am not confident I have done this exercise properly.
I have to get it in by Monday 12th PM. Any advice much appreciated,
Ex: x is a real estate agent
Rx: x is rich
Lx: x is a lawyer
Yx: x is a yuppie
Axy: x respects y
1. all real estate agents are yuppies x (Ex --> Yx)
2. no real estate agents are yuppies x (Ex --> ~Yx)
3. some but not all real estate agents are yuppies x (Ex ∧ ~Yx)
4. some real estate agents are yuppies and some are not x (Ex ∧ Yx)
5. if any real estate agent is a yuppie then all are x (Ex ---> Yx)
6. any real estate agent who is not a yuppie is not rich x (Ex ∧ ~Yx) --> Rx
7. yuppies who are not rich don’t exist x (Yx --> Rx)
8. every yuppie respects some lawyer x [Yx --> ( y)(Ly∧ Axy)]
9. no lawyer respects himself x~ (Yxx)
10. every self-respecting real estate agent is rich x (Exx ---> Rx)
11. some lawyer respects every real estate agent (y)(Lx∧(y) (Ey --> Axy))
12. anyone who is a real estate agent and a lawyer is a yuppie and rich
x [(Ex∧Lx) -->(Yx∧Rx)]
13. no real estate agent respects every lawyer x (Ex --> (y) (Lxy)
14. real estate agents and lawyers are rich if they are yuppies x ((Ex ∨ Lx) ∧ Yx) --> Rx
15. real estate agents and lawyers are rich only if they are yuppies
x ((Ex ∨ Lx) ∧ Rx) --> Yx
Thank you for any help checking this
Sorry about that - I have corrected the post.
Hope you have time to re-check.
3 & 4 seem like the same answer but it cant be true?
Appreciate any help. Thank you
I have put the answer you have given me above as my answer to some estate agents are yuppies and some are not!! So how is this different to not all estate agents are yuppies?? Please excuse me but this is my first attempt at predicate logic.