A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

anonymous

  • one year ago

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)]

  • This Question is Closed
  1. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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.

  2. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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.

  3. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @Spacelimbus

  4. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @Spacelimbus Thank you for replying. I like your informal proof :) I am still working on trying to figure this out.

  5. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @zepdrix how are you with predicate logic?

  6. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Ok sorry sorry was finishing up a game :d What's going on now?

  7. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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

  8. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    The good news is-- I'm fine with induction and propositional logic now... this is the last piece of the puzzle.

  9. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    what game were you playing?

  10. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Rocket League XD lol

  11. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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.

  12. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    that's cray. i've never seen a vehicle based soccer game before, lol

  13. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    i only play chess and starcraft :X

  14. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Hmm I gotta think about this problem a bit :O

  15. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Ummm ok let's see if this works or not...

  16. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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. \[\large\rm \forall x, A(x)\quad\equiv\quad A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\]

  17. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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. \[\large\rm \exists x: B(x)\quad\equiv\quad B(x_i)\]

  18. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    And of course, the caret shape is to denote "and" or "intersection.

  19. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    So on the left side of our thing we have,\[\large\rm \left[A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\right]\cap B(x_i)\]

  20. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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...

  21. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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.\[\large\rm \exists x:\left[A(x)\wedge B(x)\right]\quad\equiv\quad A(x_i)\cap B(x_i)\]

  22. zepdrix
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    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

  23. 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

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.