anonymous
  • anonymous
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
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
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.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
anonymous
  • anonymous
@Spacelimbus

Looking for something else?

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

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
@Spacelimbus Thank you for replying. I like your informal proof :) I am still working on trying to figure this out.
anonymous
  • anonymous
@zepdrix how are you with predicate logic?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Ok sorry sorry was finishing up a game :d What's going on now?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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
anonymous
  • anonymous
The good news is-- I'm fine with induction and propositional logic now... this is the last piece of the puzzle.
anonymous
  • anonymous
what game were you playing?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Rocket League XD lol
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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.
anonymous
  • anonymous
that's cray. i've never seen a vehicle based soccer game before, lol
anonymous
  • anonymous
i only play chess and starcraft :X
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Hmm I gotta think about this problem a bit :O
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Ummm ok let's see if this works or not...
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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. \[\large\rm \forall x, A(x)\quad\equiv\quad A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\]
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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. \[\large\rm \exists x: B(x)\quad\equiv\quad B(x_i)\]
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
And of course, the caret shape is to denote "and" or "intersection.
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
So on the left side of our thing we have,\[\large\rm \left[A(x_1)\cup A(x_2)\cup...\cup A(x_n)\right]\cap B(x_i)\]
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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...
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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.\[\large\rm \exists x:\left[A(x)\wedge B(x)\right]\quad\equiv\quad A(x_i)\cap B(x_i)\]
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
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

Looking for something else?

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