Provide a proof using standard predicate logic (without using the deduction method, proof by contradiction, or proof by contraposition) for the validity of the following argument: (∀x)A(x) ∧ (∃x)B(x) → (∃x)[A(x) ∧ B(x)]

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.

Provide a proof using standard predicate logic (without using the deduction method, proof by contradiction, or proof by contraposition) for the validity of the following argument: (∀x)A(x) ∧ (∃x)B(x) → (∃x)[A(x) ∧ B(x)]

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

I'm trying to solve this now. If anyone wants to work with me then that would be great; otherwise, I have no way to check my proof.
If you care to show your solution I am happy to read it for you. What I remember from my course (which was very long ago) was to in order to show such statements we had to use axioms, in fact we had 13. It is indeed hard to judge if you're working with the same axiom system as I did. If you work with an axiom system you need to share your axioms in order to get help. Aside from that, I can only tell that the implication is indeed true. Because if a Formula A(x) is true for all its arguments and there exists an x such that B(x) is true then of course there exists an x such that A(x) and B(x) are true. This is however far from a formal proof. If you need a formal one, we need your axioms.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

@Spacelimbus Thank you for replying. I like your informal proof :) I am still working on trying to figure this out.
@zepdrix how are you with predicate logic?
Ok sorry sorry was finishing up a game :d What's going on now?
If `For all x, A(x)` `and` `there exists an x such that B(x)`, then `there exists an x such that` `A(x) and B(x)`. This is really weird stuff 0_o I don't remember ever doing this nonsense with these quantifiers.. hmm
The good news is-- I'm fine with induction and propositional logic now... this is the last piece of the puzzle.
what game were you playing?
Rocket League XD lol
Had to give up the addicting games so I could really really focus on schooling this semester :P Rocket League is mindless fun though, nothing that I can't let go of.
that's cray. i've never seen a vehicle based soccer game before, lol
i only play chess and starcraft :X
Hmm I gotta think about this problem a bit :O
Ummm ok let's see if this works or not...
The first piece: \(\large\rm \forall x, A(x)\) For all x, A(x). So any x's that we have, all of them, satify this statement A. So all together we have the union of a bunch of statements A involving different x's. \[\large\rm \forall x, A(x)\quad\equiv\quad A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\]
This next piece: \(\large\rm \exists x: B(x)\) Which translates to `There exists an x such that B(x)`, tells us that there is a single x in existence that satisfies the statement B. Let's call it x_i, just one of the many x's we could list. \[\large\rm \exists x: B(x)\quad\equiv\quad B(x_i)\]
And of course, the caret shape is to denote "and" or "intersection.
So on the left side of our thing we have,\[\large\rm \left[A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\right]\cap B(x_i)\]
They only intersect at the same x,\[\large\rm A(x_i)\cap B(x_i)\]And we need to see if that `implies` the right part. I don't think I'm doing this right -_- it's been too long...
On the right side, \(\large\rm \exists x:\left[A(x)\wedge B(x)\right]\) Translates to: There exists an x such that, both A(x) and B(x). Again, let's call this x, x_i. So the right side says that some x exists, so that the intersection of A(x) and B(x) is satisfied.\[\large\rm \exists x:\left[A(x)\wedge B(x)\right]\quad\equiv\quad A(x_i)\cap B(x_i)\]
But again, I don't think I'm doing this correctly -_- There are probably some familiar easy steps that I'm forgetting about. I just don't remember how to deal with these XD lol

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question