Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

No-data

  • 3 years ago

Why \[\forall x \in \emptyset: P(x)\] is equivalent to \[x\in \emptyset \Rightarrow P(x)\]?

  • This Question is Closed
  1. binarymimic
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 3

    it's just how mathematicians/logicians write things down. it's a matter of notation, and nothing more. they both state the same thing in a different way. they both claim that for any x in the empty set, P(x) is true another trivial example, what if we said: E = the set of all even numbers P(x) = "x + 2 is in E" and we made this claim: For all even numbers e in E, e + 2 is in E. \[\forall e \in E, P(e)\] see how this is an equivalent statement to: "if e is in E, then e + 2 is in E" \[(e \in E) \rightarrow P(e)\]

  2. UnkleRhaukus
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    \[\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}\hline\phi&\psi&\phi\Rightarrow\psi\\\hline T&T&T\\T&F&F\\F&T&T\\F&F&T\\\hline\end{array}\]\[\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline \forall x \in \emptyset:P(x)&x\in\emptyset &P(x)& x\in\emptyset \Rightarrow P(x)\\\hline T&T&T&T\\\hline\end{array}\]

  3. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy