Logic/Discrete Math: Let x be a tool, and P(x) be the statement "an x is in excellent condition". How do you express "No tool is in excellent condition" using quantifiers, logical connectives, x, and P(x)? Should the negation sign be before the quantifier or the predicate? *update: new question on the last comment

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions.

A community for students.

Logic/Discrete Math: Let x be a tool, and P(x) be the statement "an x is in excellent condition". How do you express "No tool is in excellent condition" using quantifiers, logical connectives, x, and P(x)? Should the negation sign be before the quantifier or the predicate? *update: new question on the last comment

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

It will be: |dw:1339138738460:dw| For all x tools, the negotion of P(x) will be true. which will then mean no tool will be in excellent condition since we've stated that for all x, negotion of p(x) is true. hence whatever tool that may be, p(x) is false.
Another way is this: \[\neg \exists x (P(x))\] Essentially, our answers are equivalent by De Morgan's Law for Quantifiers.
negotion of p(x) is "x is not in excellent condition". now all we have to state is that for any tool x, it will not be in good condition so that no x is in excellent condition which will lead us to the statement "For all x, x is not in excellent condition" which will give us the answer: \[\forall x,negotion of P(x)\]

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

Thanks, all. How about this: Let x be a student, y, be a television show, and Q(x,y) be the statement "a student has been in a television show." How do you express "No student has ever been on a television show"?
negotion of Q(x,y) will be "a student has not been in a television show". now to show that no student has ever been on a television show, we are to state that for all students and for any tv show, no student has ever been on a television show, which is: |dw:1339141822205:dw|
Thank you very much!

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question