1.

Let's analyze each sentence:

(a) (∀x ∈ A)(∃y ∈ A)(x + y < 14)

This sentence can be interpreted as "For every x in A, there exists a y in A such that x + y is less
than 14." Since A consists of the numbers 1 to 9, we can check each value of x and y to
determine the truth value of the sentence.

For x = 1, we can find y = 13 (1 + 13 = 14, which is not less than 14).

For x = 2, we can find y = 12 (2 + 12 = 14, which is not less than 14).
For x = 3, we can find y = 11 (3 + 11 = 14, which is not less than 14).
...
For x = 9, we can find y = 5 (9 + 5 = 14, which is not less than 14).

Since for each x there exists at least one y that satisfies the condition, the sentence is true.

(b) (∀x ∈ A)(∀y ∈ A)(x + y < 14)

This sentence can be interpreted as "For every x and y in A, x + y is less than 14." Again, we can
check each pair of x and y to determine the truth value.

For x = 1 and y = 1, we have 1 + 1 = 2, which is less than 14.

For x = 1 and y = 2, we have 1 + 2 = 3, which is less than 14.
...
For x = 9 and y = 9, we have 9 + 9 = 18, which is not less than 14.

Since there exists a pair (x, y) that makes the statement false (x = 9, y = 9), the sentence is false.
(c) (∀x ∈ A)(x + y < 14)

This sentence can be interpreted as "For every x in A, x + y is less than 14." However, the
variable y is not quantified, meaning its value is not specified. As a result, we cannot determine
the truth value or the truth set of this sentence.

(d) (∃x ∈ A)(x + y < 14)

This sentence can be interpreted as "There exists an x in A such that x + y is less than 14." Again,
the variable y is not quantified, so we cannot determine the truth set of this sentence. However,
we know that A contains numbers from 1 to 9, so we can find at least one x that satisfies the
condition. For example, if y = 1, then x = 9 satisfies the condition (9 + 1 = 10, which is less than
14). Therefore, the sentence is true.

2.
Let's analyze each proposition:

(a) ∀x, x + 3 ≥ 7

This proposition can be read as "For every x in the domain set {3, 5, 7, 9}, x + 3 is greater than or
equal to 7." To determine its truth value, we need to check if the statement holds true for every
value of x in the domain set.

For x = 3, we have 3 + 3 = 6, which is not greater than or equal to 7.

For x = 5, we have 5 + 3 = 8, which is greater than or equal to 7.
For x = 7, we have 7 + 3 = 10, which is greater than or equal to 7.
For x = 9, we have 9 + 3 = 12, which is greater than or equal to 7.

Since there exists an x (x = 3) for which the statement is false, the proposition is false.
Counterexample: x = 3

(b) ∀x, x is an odd number

This proposition states that every x in the domain set {3, 5, 7, 9} is an odd number. To determine
its truth value, we need to check if every element in the domain set satisfies the condition.

For x = 3, 3 is an odd number.

For x = 5, 5 is an odd number.
For x = 7, 7 is an odd number.
For x = 9, 9 is an odd number.

Since every x in the domain set is indeed an odd number, the proposition is true.

(c) ∀x, x is a prime number

This proposition states that every x in the domain set {3, 5, 7, 9} is a prime number. To
determine its truth value, we need to check if every element in the domain set satisfies the
condition.

For x = 3, 3 is a prime number.

For x = 5, 5 is a prime number.
For x = 7, 7 is a prime number.
For x = 9, 9 is not a prime number.

Since there exists an x (x = 9) for which the statement is false, the proposition is false.
Counterexample: x = 9

(d) ∀x, |x| = x

This proposition states that for every x in the domain set {3, 5, 7, 9}, the absolute value of x is
equal to x. To determine its truth value, we need to check if every element in the domain set
satisfies the condition.

For x = 3, |3| = 3.
For x = 5, |5| = 5.
For x = 7, |7| = 7.
For x = 9, |9| = 9.

Since every x in the domain set satisfies the condition, the proposition is true.

3.
To express the given English sentences using predicate logic, let's assign suitable predicates and
variables:

(a) Let C(x, y) represent "x is a citizen" and S(x, y) represent "x will be counted on station y in the
country." The sentence can be expressed as:

∀x ∃y (C(x) ∧ S(x, y) ∧ (∀z)(S(x, z) → z = y))

Translation: For every x, there exists a y such that x is a citizen and x will be counted on station y
in the country, and for any other z, if x is counted on station z, then z is equal to y.

(b) Let F(x) represent "x is a football player" and G(x, y) represent "x went to location y." The
sentence can be expressed as:
∃x (F(x) ∧ G(x, "Lusaka"))

Translation: There exists an x such that x is a football player and x went to Lusaka.

(c) Let L(x, y) represent "x loves y." The sentence can be expressed as:

∃x (∀y L(x, y))

Translation: There exists an x such that x loves every y.

(d) Let B(x) represent "x behaves well" and L(x, y) represent "x loves y." The sentence can be
expressed as:

∀x (∀y ((B(y) ∧ x ≠ y) → L(x, y)))

Translation: For every x, for every y, if y behaves well and x is not equal to y, then x loves y.

4.
To show the equivalence of the given expressions, we'll break it down into two parts:

(a) ∀xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) ⇔ ∀x∃y(P(x) ∧ Q(y))

First, let's analyze the left-hand side (LHS):

∀xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)

This expression states that "For every x, P(x) is true" AND "There exists an x for which Q(x) is
true."

Now, let's analyze the right-hand side (RHS):

∀x∃y(P(x) ∧ Q(y))
This expression states that "For every x, there exists a y such that P(x) AND Q(y) are both true."

To show the equivalence, we need to demonstrate that if one side is true, the other side is also
true, and vice versa.

(i) Assuming LHS is true:

If ∀xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true, it means that P(x) is true for every x, and there exists at least one x

that P(x) ∧ Q(y) are both true. Therefore, the RHS is also true.
for which Q(x) is true. In this case, we can let y = x. So, for every x, there exists a y (y = x) such

(ii) Assuming RHS is true:

If ∀x∃y(P(x) ∧ Q(y)) is true, it means that for every x, there exists a y such that P(x) ∧ Q(y) are

P(x) ∧ Q(y)). Also, there exists at least one x (say x = x_0) for which Q(x_0) is true. Therefore,
both true. This implies that P(x) is true for every x (since there exists a y for each x that satisfies

the LHS is also true.

conclude that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) and ∀x∃y(P(x) ∧ Q(y)) are equivalent.
Since we have shown that if one side is true, the other side is also true, and vice versa, we can

(b) ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) ⇔ ∀x∀y(P(x) ∧ Q(y))

First, let's analyze the left-hand side (LHS):

∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x)

This expression states that "For every x, P(x) is true" OR "For every x, Q(x) is true."

Now, let's analyze the right-hand side (RHS):

∀x∀y(P(x) ∧ Q(y))
This expression states that "For every x and every y, P(x) AND Q(y) are both true."

To show the equivalence, we need to demonstrate that if one side is true, the other side is also
true, and vice versa.

(i) Assuming LHS is true:

If ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true, it means that either P(x) is true for every x or Q(x) is true for every x.
In either case, it implies that P(x) AND Q(y) are both true for every x and every y. Therefore, the
RHS is also true.

(ii) Assuming RHS is true:

If ∀x∀y(P(x) ∧ Q(y)) is true, it means that for every x and every y, P(x) AND Q(y) are both true.
This implies that P(x) is true for every x and Q(x) is true for every x. Therefore, both P(x) and
Q(x) are true for every x, and hence, the LHS

is also true.

conclude that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) and ∀x∀y(P(x) ∧ Q(y)) are equivalent.
Since we have shown that if one side is true, the other side is also true, and vice versa, we can

5.
Let's determine the truth values of the given statements using the predicate P(x) defined as "x ≤
4".

(a) P(0)
In this case, we substitute x = 0 into the predicate P(x).
P(0) translates to "0 ≤ 4".
Since 0 is indeed less than or equal to 4, the statement P(0) is true.

(b) P(4)
Similarly, substituting x = 4 into the predicate P(x) gives:
P(4) translates to "4 ≤ 4".
Since 4 is equal to 4 (it is not strictly less than 4), the statement P(4) is true.

(c) P(6)
Again, substituting x = 6 into the predicate P(x) yields:
P(6) translates to "6 ≤ 4".
However, 6 is not less than or equal to 4. Therefore, the statement P(6) is false.

In summary:
(a) P(0) is true.
(b) P(4) is true.
(c) P(6) is false.

6.
Let's determine the truth values of the given statements using the predicate P(x) defined as
"The word x contains the letter 'a'".

(a) P(orange)
The word "orange" does contain the letter 'a', so the statement P(orange) is true.

(b) P(lemon)
The word "lemon" does not contain the letter 'a', so the statement P(lemon) is false.
(c) P(true)
The word "true" does not contain the letter 'a', so the statement P(true) is false.

(d) P(false)
The word "false" does not contain the letter 'a', so the statement P(false) is false.

In summary:
(a) P(orange) is true.
(b) P(lemon) is false.
(c) P(true) is false.
(d) P(false) is false.

7.
Let's express the given quantifications in English, considering the predicate P(x) defined as "x
spends more than five hours every weekday in class" and the domain being the set of all
students at SUA.

(a) ∃xP(x)

This statement (∃xP(x)) can be expressed in English as "There exists a student at SUA who
spends more than five hours every weekday in class."

(b) ∀xP(x)

This statement (∀xP(x)) can be expressed in English as "Every student at SUA spends more than
five hours every weekday in class."

(c) ∃¬P(x)

This statement (∃¬P(x)) can be expressed in English as "There exists a student at SUA who does
not spend more than five hours every weekday in class."
(d) ∀x¬P(x)

This statement (∀x¬P(x)) can be expressed in English as "Every student at SUA does not spend
more than five hours every weekday in class."

8.
Let's express the given quantifications in English, considering the predicate P(x, y) defined as "x
has taken course y," where the domain for x is the set of all students in your class and y is the
set of IS courses.

(a) ∃x∃yP(x, y)

This statement (∃x∃yP(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "There exists a student in your class
who has taken at least one IS course."

(b) ∃x∀yP(x, y)

This statement (∃x∀yP(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "There exists a student in your class
who has taken all the IS courses."

(c) ∀x∃yP(x, y)

This statement (∀x∃yP(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "For every student in your class,
there exists an IS course that they have taken."

(d) ∃y∀xP(x, y)

This statement (∃y∀xP(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "There exists an IS course that every
student in your class has taken."

(e) ∃x∃y¬P(x, y)

This statement (∃x∃y¬P(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "There exists a student in your
class who has not taken at least one IS course."
(f) ∀x∃¬P(x, y)

This statement (∀x∃¬P(x, y)) can be expressed in English as "For every student in your class,
there exists an IS course that they have not taken."

9.
Let's express each of the given statements using quantifiers and the predicate L(x, y) defined as
"x loves y," where the domain for both x and y is the set of all people in the world.

(a) Everyone loves Jerry:

∀x L(x, Jerry)
This statement can be expressed as "For every person x in the world, x loves Jerry."

(b) Everyone loves somebody:

∀x ∃y L(x, y)
This statement can be expressed as "For every person x in the world, there exists a person y
whom x loves."

(c) There is somebody whom Lydia does not love:

∃y ¬L(Lydia, y)
This statement can be expressed as "There exists a person y in the world whom Lydia does not
love."

(d) There is somebody whom everybody loves:

∃x ∀y L(y, x)
This statement can be expressed as "There exists a person x in the world whom everybody
loves."

(e) Nobody loves everybody:

¬∃x ∀y L(y, x)
This statement can be expressed as "There does not exist a person x in the world whom
everybody loves."

(f) There is somebody whom no one loves:

∃x ∀y ¬L(y, x)
This statement can be expressed as "There exists a person x in the world whom no one loves."

(g) There is exactly one person whom everybody loves:

∃x (∀y L(y, x) ∧ ∀z ((z ≠ x) → ¬∀y L(y, z)))

This statement can be expressed as "There exists a person x in the world whom everybody
loves, and for any other person z, if z is not equal to x, then not everybody loves z."

(h) Everybody loves himself or herself:

∀x L(x, x)
This statement can be expressed as "For every person x in the world, x loves himself or herself."

(i) There is someone who loves no one besides himself or herself:

∃x (∀y (y ≠ x → ¬L(x, y)))

This statement can be expressed as "There exists a person x in the world such that for every
other person y, if y is not equal to x, then x does not love y."

10.
To express the statement "There is a person who has taken a flight on every airline in the world"
using quantifiers, we can define a predicate T(x, y) as "Person x has taken a flight on airline y."
Here, the domain for x is the set of all people, and the domain for y is the set of all airlines in
the world.

Using this predicate, we can express the statement as follows:

∃x ∀y T(x, y)

This statement can be read as "There exists a person x such that for every airline y in the world,
person x has taken a flight on airline y."

In other words, there is at least one person who has flown on every airline in the world.

11.

To show that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) and ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) are logically equivalent,
we need to show that they have the same truth value for all possible interpretations.

We can prove their equivalence by showing that if one side is true, the other side must also be
true, and if one side is false, the other side must also be false.

Let's consider each case:

Case 1: If ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true, then ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true.

Assume that ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true. This means that either every element x satisfies P(x) or
every element x satisfies Q(x).

If every element x satisfies P(x), then for any y, P(x) ∨ Q(x) is true for every combination of x and
y. Therefore, ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true.

If every element x satisfies Q(x), then for any y, P(x) ∨ Q(x) is true for every combination of x
and y. Therefore, ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true.

In either case, if ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true, then ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true.

Case 2: If ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true, then ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true.

Assume that ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true. This means that for every combination of x and y, P(x) ∨
Q(x) is true.

If we fix y to be a specific value, say y = y0, then for any x, P(x) ∨ Q(x) is true. This implies that
either P(x) is true for all x or Q(x) is true for all x.

Therefore, we can conclude that if ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) is true, then ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true.

we can conclude that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) and ∀x∀y(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) are logically
Since we have shown that if one side is true, the other side must also be true, and vice versa,

equivalent.

12.

To show that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) and ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) are logically equivalent,
we need to show that they have the same truth value for all possible interpretations.

We can prove their equivalence by showing that if one side is true, the other side must also be
true, and if one side is false, the other side must also be false.

Let's consider each case:

Case 1: If ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true, then ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.

Assume that ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true. This means that either every element x satisfies P(x) or
there exists an element x that satisfies Q(x).

If every element x satisfies P(x), then for any x, we can choose y = x, and P(x) ∨ Q(y) will be true.
Therefore, ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.
P(x) ∨ Q(y) will be true. Therefore, ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.
If there exists an element x that satisfies Q(x), then we can choose that specific x and y = x, and

In either case, if ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true, then ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.

Case 2: If ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true, then ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true.

Assume that ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true. This means that for every element x, there exists an
element y such that P(x) ∨ Q(y) is true.

P(x0) ∨ Q(y0) is true. This implies that either P(x0) is true or Q(y0) is true.
If we fix x to be a specific value, say x = x0, then there exists a corresponding y = y0 such that

Therefore, we can conclude that if ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true, then ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true.

we can conclude that the expressions ∀xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) and ∀x∃y(P(x) ∨ Q(y)) are logically
Since we have shown that if one side is true, the other side must also be true, and vice versa,

equivalent.

13.

To show that the expressions ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) are not logically equivalent,
we need to find a counterexample where one expression is true and the other is false.

Let's consider the following scenario:

Domain: {1, 2}

Let P(x) be the statement "x is even," and Q(x) be the statement "x is odd."
In this scenario:

- ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true because there exists an element in the domain that satisfies P(x) (2 is
even) and there exists an element that satisfies Q(x) (1 is odd).

- ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) is false because there is no element in the domain that satisfies both P(x) and
Q(x) simultaneously.

Therefore, we have found a counterexample where ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
is false. Thus, the expressions ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) are not logically equivalent.

14.

To show that the expressions ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) are not logically equivalent,
we need to find a counterexample where one expression is true and the other is false.

Let's consider the following scenario:

Domain: {1, 2}

Let P(x) be the statement "x is even," and Q(x) be the statement "x is odd."

In this scenario:

- ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true because there exists an element in the domain that satisfies P(x) (2 is
even) and there exists an element that satisfies Q(x) (1 is odd).

- ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) is false because there is no element in the domain that simultaneously satisfies
both P(x) and Q(x). In other words, there is no element that is both even and odd.

Therefore, we have found a counterexample where ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
is false. Thus, the expressions ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) and ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) are not logically equivalent.
15.
To write a specification that is true if and only if the given program terminates, we can define a
predicate T(x) as "The program terminates when executed with input x." We want to specify
when this predicate is true.

Let's break down the program and analyze the conditions for termination:

1. WHILE X > 1 DO: The loop continues as long as the value of X is greater than 1.

2. IF ODD(X) THEN X := (3 * X) + 1: If X is an odd number, it gets updated to (3 * X) + 1.

3. ELSE X := X DIV 2: If X is an even number, it gets updated to its integer division by 2.

Based on the analysis, we can specify the termination condition as follows:

T(x) = X <= 1

The predicate T(x) is true if and only if the value of X becomes less than or equal to 1 during the
execution of the program. This indicates that the program terminates.

Therefore, the specification "The program terminates" can be expressed using the predicate T(x)
as T(x) = X <= 1.

16.

To find a condition P such that the expression [P]C[R < Y ∧ X = R + (Y × Q)] is true, we need to
determine the pre-condition P that ensures the post-condition R < Y ∧ X = R + (Y × Q) holds after
the execution of the code snippet.

Let's analyze the code snippet:

```
{T}
R := X;
Q := 0;
WHILE Y ≤ R DO
BEGIN
R := R - Y;
Q := Q + 1;
END

{R < Y ∧ X = R + (Y × Q)}
```

The post-condition specifies that R < Y and X = R + (Y × Q) after the execution. To satisfy this
condition, we can choose the pre-condition P as:

P: X ≥ Y

Explanation:
Since the loop condition is "Y ≤ R," if we set X ≥ Y as the pre-condition, it guarantees that R
starts with a value greater than or equal to Y. This ensures that the loop will execute at least
once because the initial value of R (X) will be greater than or equal to Y. This condition allows
the code snippet to update R and Q as necessary until R < Y is true.

Therefore, with the pre-condition P: X ≥ Y, the expression [P]C[R < Y ∧ X = R + (Y × Q)] is true.
Code snippet.
{T}
R := X;
Q := 0;
WHILE Y ≤ R DO
BEGIN
R := R - Y;
Q := Q + 1;
END

{R < Y ∧ X = R + (Y × Q)}

17.
The expression [T]C[T] is true when the post-condition T holds after the execution of the code
snippet C, given the pre-condition T.

In other words, [T]C[T] is true if and only if executing the code snippet C with the pre-condition
T guarantees the post-condition T.

The condition [T]C[T] can be satisfied in different cases depending on the specific code snippet C
and the pre-condition/post-condition T.

To determine when [T]C[T] is true, we need to analyze the code snippet C and understand its
effect on the variables and conditions involved. Specifically, we need to ensure that executing C
with the initial state satisfying T will result in the final state satisfying T.

Please provide the code snippet C and the pre-condition/post-condition T for a more specific
analysis and to determine when [T]C[T] is true.

18.
To write a partial correctness specification that is true if and only if the command C has the
effect of multiplying the values of X and Y and storing the result in X, we can define a post-
condition P that captures the desired effect.
Let's denote the initial value of X as X₀ and the initial value of Y as Y₀. We want to specify that
after executing the command C, the value of X is equal to X₀ * Y₀.

The partial correctness specification can be written as follows:

{X = X₀ * Y₀} C {X = X₀ * Y₀}

The post-condition {X = X₀ * Y₀} ensures that after executing C, the value of X is equal to the
product of X₀ and Y₀, reflecting the desired effect of multiplying the values of X and Y and
storing the result in X.

Note that this specification only addresses the effect on X and assumes that Y remains
unchanged. If the command C also modifies the value of Y, additional specifications or
conditions would need to be included to capture the intended behavior.

19.
To write a specification that is true if the execution of command C always halts when started in a
state satisfying P, we can use a termination condition to capture the requirement for the
program to halt.

Let's denote the pre-condition as P and the termination condition as T. The specification can be
written as follows:

{P} C {T}

The specification states that when the program starts in a state satisfying P and executes the
command C, it will always reach a state where T holds, indicating termination or halting of the
program.
The termination condition T can vary depending on the specific requirements and properties of
the program. It could be a simple condition such as a particular variable reaching a specific
value, or a more complex condition involving multiple variables and constraints.

It's important to define the termination condition T carefully, taking into account the properties
of the command C and the desired behavior of the program.

20.
The flaw in the given "proof" of 1 = -1 lies in step 4:

4. √(-1) × √(-1) = -1 as (-1) × (-1) = 1

The flaw arises from an incorrect application of the rules of square roots. In step 4, the "proof"
assumes that the square root of a product is equal to the product of the square roots. However,
this assumption is incorrect for complex numbers.

In the complex number system, the square root of a product is not generally equal to the
product of the square roots of individual factors. This is known as the non-commutativity of
complex numbers under square roots.

In this case, the square root of -1, denoted as √(-1), is the imaginary unit i. So, √(-1) × √(-1) is
actually equal to i × i, which is -1 and not 1. Therefore, the step that claims √(-1) × √(-1) = 1 is
incorrect.

By identifying this error, we can conclude that the "proof" of 1 = -1 is flawed and incorrect. The
flaw lies in the incorrect assumption about the behavior of square roots in the complex number
system.

21.

post-condition {Y = x ∧ X = y} holds after executing the command sequence:

To determine the truth of the given specification, we need to prove or disprove whether the
{X = x ∧ Y = y}
X := X + Y ;
Y := X - Y ;
X := X - Y

{Y = x ∧ X = y}

Let's analyze the command sequence step by step:

1. X := X + Y: This statement updates the value of X to the sum of its initial value (x) and Y.

2. Y := X - Y: This statement updates the value of Y to the difference between the updated value
of X (x + y) and its initial value (y).

3. X := X - Y: This statement updates the value of X to the difference between the updated value
of X (x + y) and the updated value of Y (x).

To prove the specification, we need to show that the post-condition {Y = x ∧ X = y} holds after
executing these statements.

Let's verify if the post-condition is indeed true:

1. After executing X := X + Y, we have X = x + y.

2. After executing Y := X - Y, we have Y = (x + y) - y = x.

3. After executing X := X - Y, we have X = (x + y) - x = y.

post-condition {Y = x ∧ X = y}.
So, after executing the given command sequence, we have Y = x and X = y, which matches the

Therefore, the given specification is true, and it holds under the circumstances where X = x and
Y = y before executing the command sequence.

22.
To show that the specification:

`{X = R + (Y × Q)} BEGIN R := R − Y ; Q := Q + 1 END {X = R + (Y × Q)}`

is true, we need to demonstrate that the post-condition holds after executing the given
command sequence.

Let's analyze the command sequence step by step:

1. R := R - Y: This statement updates the value of R by subtracting Y from its current value.

2. Q := Q + 1: This statement updates the value of Q by incrementing it by 1.

To prove the specification, we need to show that the post-condition X = R + (Y × Q) holds after
executing these statements.

Let's verify if the post-condition is indeed true:

1. After executing R := R - Y, we have R = R_initial - Y.

2. After executing Q := Q + 1, we have Q = Q_initial + 1.

So, the updated values of R and Q are R = R_initial - Y and Q = Q_initial + 1.

Now, let's substitute these updated values into the post-condition:

X = R + (Y × Q) becomes X = (R_initial - Y) + (Y × (Q_initial + 1))

Expanding the expression further, we have X = R_initial - Y + Y × Q_initial + Y

Simplifying the expression, we get X = R_initial + Y × Q_initial.

Therefore, after executing the given command sequence, we have X = R_initial + Y × Q_initial,
which matches the post-condition X = R + (Y × Q).

Hence, we have successfully shown that the given specification is true.

23.
To devise an axiom and/or rule of inference for a command SKIP that has no effect, we can
introduce the following axiom:

Axiom for SKIP:

SKIP has no effect on the program state. It does not modify any variables or conditions.

This axiom states that the command SKIP does not change the program state in any way. It is
often used as a placeholder or a do-nothing command.

Now, let's show that if the one-armed conditional statement IF S THEN C is regarded as an
abbreviation for IF S THEN C ELSE SKIP, then the rule for one-armed conditionals can be derived
from the rule for two-armed conditionals and the axiom for SKIP.
The rule for two-armed conditionals can be expressed as follows:

Rule for two-armed conditionals:

From {S} C {P} and {¬S} SKIP {P}, we can infer {P} IF S THEN C ELSE SKIP {P}.

This rule states that if executing C under the condition S leads to the post-condition P, and
executing SKIP under the condition ¬S (negation of S) also leads to the post-condition P, then we
can infer that executing IF S THEN C ELSE SKIP will also lead to the post-condition P.

Now, if we consider IF S THEN C as an abbreviation for IF S THEN C ELSE SKIP, we can rewrite the
rule for one-armed conditionals as follows:

Rule for one-armed conditionals (derived from two-armed conditionals):

From {S} C {P}, we can infer {P} IF S THEN C {P}.

By treating the one-armed conditional as an abbreviation for the two-armed conditional, we can
use the rule for two-armed conditionals and the axiom for SKIP to derive the rule for one-armed
conditionals.

This shows that the rule for one-armed conditionals can be derived from the rule for two-armed
conditionals and the axiom/rule for SKIP.

24.

To show that if `{P ∧ S}C1{Q}` and `{P ∧ ¬S}C2{Q}`, then it is possible to deduce `{P}IF S THEN C1
ELSE IF ¬S THEN C2 {Q}`, we can use the rule for two-armed conditionals and the conjunction
elimination rule.

The rule for two-armed conditionals can be expressed as follows:

Rule for two-armed conditionals:
From `{S} C1 {Q}` and `{¬S} C2 {Q}`, we can infer `{P} IF S THEN C1 ELSE IF ¬S THEN C2 {Q}`.

Now, let's prove the deduction using the given premises:

1. `{P ∧ S} C1 {Q}` (Premise)

2. `{P ∧ ¬S} C2 {Q}` (Premise)

From premise 1, we can conclude:

3. `P ∧ S` (Conjunction Elimination, taking the first conjunct)

From premise 2, we can conclude:

4. `P ∧ ¬S` (Conjunction Elimination, taking the first conjunct)

Using the rule for two-armed conditionals (taking S as the condition), we have:
5. `{S} C1 {Q}` (Premise 1)
6. `{¬S} C2 {Q}` (Premise 2)
7. `{P} IF S THEN C1 ELSE IF ¬S THEN C2 {Q}` (Rule for two-armed conditionals, using 5 and 6)

Therefore, by combining premises 1, 2, and the rule for two-armed conditionals, we can deduce
`{P} IF S THEN C1 ELSE IF ¬S THEN C2 {Q}`.

This deduction shows that it is indeed possible to deduce the specified statement from the
given premises.

25.
To show that the program:
```
{M ≥ 1}
BEGIN
X := 0;
FOR N = 1 UNTIL M DO
X := X + N
END
{X = (M × (M + 1)) DIV 2}
```

preserves the post-condition `{X = (M × (M + 1)) DIV 2}` given the pre-condition `{M ≥ 1}`, we
need to prove that the post-condition holds after executing the program.

Let's analyze the program step by step:

1. X := 0: This statement initializes the variable X to 0 before the loop begins.

2. FOR N = 1 UNTIL M DO
X := X + N: This loop iterates from N = 1 to N = M, adding the current value of N to X in each
iteration.

After the loop, X will have the value of the sum of numbers from 1 to M.

To prove the post-condition, we need to show that after the loop, X is equal to `(M × (M + 1))
DIV 2`.

We can use mathematical induction to prove this:

Base Case: When M = 1
After the loop, X will be updated as X := X + 1, which is equal to 1.
`(M × (M + 1)) DIV 2 = (1 × (1 + 1)) DIV 2 = 2 DIV 2 = 1`
Therefore, the post-condition holds for the base case.

Inductive Step: Assume the post-condition holds for M = k, where k ≥ 1.

After the loop, X will be equal to `(k × (k + 1)) DIV 2` according to the inductive hypothesis.

Now, let's consider the case for M = k + 1.

After the loop, X will be updated as X := X + (k + 1).
So, X will be `(k × (k + 1)) DIV 2 + (k + 1)`.
Simplifying this expression, we get:
```
X = (k × (k + 1) + 2(k + 1)) DIV 2
= (k² + k + 2k + 2) DIV 2
= (k² + 3k + 2) DIV 2
= ((k + 1) × (k + 2)) DIV 2
= ((k + 1) × (k + 1 + 1)) DIV 2
= (M × (M + 1)) DIV 2
```

Therefore, the post-condition holds for M = k + 1.

By the principle of mathematical induction, we can conclude that the post-condition holds for
all values of M ≥ 1.

Hence, we have shown that the program `{M ≥ 1} BEGIN X := 0; FOR N = 1 UNTIL M DO X := X + N
END {X = (M × (M + 1)) DIV 2}` preserves the post-condition given the pre-condition.