DISCRETE STRUCTURES AND THEORY OF LOGIC (BCS 303)
Lecture – 9 (Continued…)
Translating English Sentences to Logical Expressions
Let us suppose we have to translate the following English sentence into an equivalent logical
expression.
"Every student of XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics."
First, we will rewrite the statement so that we can identify the appropriate quantifiers to use.
"For every student x in the XYZ University, x has studied discrete mathematics."
Let us suppose that the domain consists of all students of XYZ University.
And, S(x) denotes "x has studied discrete mathematics."
∀x S(x)
Note:
We can also use a different domain of discourse and a set of predicates to form the
equivalent logical expression of the above statement.
Domain: All people on the planet Earth
We need to express the statement as:
"For every person x, if person x is a student in the XYZ University then x has studied
discrete mathematics."
Let us suppose that
P(x): "Person x is a student in the XYZ University."
S(x): "Person x has studied discrete mathematics."
∀x (P(x) → S(x))
Note: We can't write ∀x (P(x) ^ S(x)) because this statement says that "All people are students
in the XYŻ University and has studied discrete mathematics."
We can also use a two-variable predicate S(x, y) which represents the statement "person x
has studied subject y."
∀x (P(x) → S(x, discrete mathematics))
where the domain consists of all people on the planet Earth.
“If x is a student in XYZ university then x has studied Discrete Mathematics.”
∀x (S(x, discrete mathematics))
where the domain consists of all students of XYZ University.
(So it’s a matter of choice whether you take one-variable predicate or two-variable predicate.)
Example: Let us suppose that we want to translate the following into logical expression:
"Some students in the XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics."
Let us consider
Domain: All students of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
∃x P(x)
Let's change the domain.
Domain: All people on the planet earth.
S(x): x is a student of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
∃x (S(x) ^ P(x))
"There is some person x having the properties that x is the student of XYZ University
and X has studied discrete mathematics."
Example: Express the following statement using predicates and quantifiers:
"There is a student who has taken more than 21 credit hours in a semester and
received all A's.”
METHOD 1:
Domain: All students
P(x): x is a student who has taken more than 21 credit hours in a semester.
Q(x): x received all A's.
Logical representation would be:
∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x))
"There exists a student x such that x has taken more than 21 credit hours in a
semester and received all A's."
Or
There exists a student who is a student of XYZ University and has studied discrete
mathematics.
Or
"There exists a student of XYZ University who has studied discrete mathematics."
METHOD 2:
Predicates
P(x): "x is a student."
Q(x): "x has taken more than 21 credit hours in a semester."
S(x): "x received all A's."
Logical Representation
∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x) ∧ S(x))
METHOD 3: (using two-variables predicates)
Domain: set of all students and all semesters.
Predicates:
S(x): "x is a student"
T(x,y): "x has taken y credit hours in a semester"
A(x): "x has received all A's in that semester"
SLogical expression becomes:
∃x ∃y (S(x) ∧ T(x, y) ∧ y > 21 ∧ A(x))
"There exists a student x such that x has taken y credit hours in a semester where y
> 21, and x received all A's."
Translation of the Expression:
"There exists a student x and a number of credit hours y, such that:
• x is a student,
• x has taken y credit hours in a semester,
• y is greater than 21,
• and x has received all A's in that semester."
Problem 1: Consider these statements. The first two are called premises and the third
is called the conclusion. The entire set is called an argument.
"All lions are fierce."
"Some lions do not drink coffee."
"Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee."
Let P(x), Q(x) and R(x) be the statements "x is a lion," "x is a fierce," and "x drinks
coffee" respectively. Assuming that the domain consists of all creatures, express the
statements in the argument using predicates P(x), Q(x), and R(x).
Solution:
Domain: All creatures
P(x): x is a lion
Q(x): x is a fierce
R(x): x drinks coffee
"All lions are fierce." ∀x (P(x) → Q(x))
"Some lions do not drink coffee." ∃x (P(x) ^ ¬R(x))
"Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee." ∃x (Q(x) ^ ¬R(x))
Problem 2: Consider these statements, of which the first three are premises and the
fourth
is a valid conclusion.
"All hummingbirds are richly colored."
"No large birds live on honey."
"Birds that do not live on honey are dull in color."
"Hummingbirds are small."
Let P(x), Q(x), R(x) and S(x) be the statements "x is a humming bird," "x is large," "x
lives on honey," and "x is richly colored" respectively. Assuming that the domain
consists of all birds, express the statements in the argument using quantifiers and P(x),
Q(x), R(x), and S(x).
Solution:
Domain: All birds
P(x): x is a humming bird
Q(x): x is large
R(x): x lives on honey
S(x): x is richly colored
"All hummingbirds are richly colored." ∀x (P(x) → S(x))
"No large birds live on honey." ∀x (Q(x) → ~R(x))
"Birds that do not live on honey are dull in color." ∀x (~R(x) → ~S(x))
"Hummingbirds are small." ∀x (P(x) → ~Q(x))
Problem 3: write down the quantified sentences in symbolic form:
1. All monkeys have tails.
2. No monkey has a tail
3. Some monkeys have tails
4. Some monkeys have no tail
Problem 4: Let
K(x) : x is a two wheeler
L(x): x is scooter
M(x): x is manufactured by Bajaj
Express the following using quantifiers:
1. Every two wheeler is a scooter
2. There is a two wheeler that is not manufactured by Bajaj.
3. There is a two wheeler that is not manufactured by Bajaj that is not scooter.
4. Every two wheeler that is a scooter is manufactured by Bajaj.
Problem 4: Let
A(x): x has white colour
B(x): x is a polar bear
C(x): x is found in cold regions
Domain: All animals
Translate the following into simple sentences:
1. ∃x (B(x) ^ ~ A(x))
2. ∃x [~ C(x)]
3. ∀x [ B(x) ^ C(x) → A(x) ]
First Order Logic (examples)
Problem 1: What is the logical translation of the following statement?
"None of my friends are perfect."
(A) ∃×(F(x) ^ -P(x))
(B) ∃×(-F(x) ^ P(x))
(C) ∃x(~F(x) ^ ¬P(x))
(D) ~∃x(F(x) ^ P(x))
Solution:
Domain: All people in this world.
Let F(x): "x is my friend."
P(x): "x is perfect."
"None of my friends are perfect." can be translated to
∀x (F(x) → ~P(x))
≡ ∀x (¬F(x) v ¬P(x))
≡ ∀x ¬(F(x) ^ P(x)).
≡ ~∃x(F(x) ^ P(x))
Thus, option D is the correct answer.
Problem 2: Which one of the following is NOT logically equivalent to ~∃x (∀y (α) ^ ∀z
(β))?
Options:
(A) ∀x (∃z(¬β) → ∀y(α))
(B) ∀x (∀z(β) → ∃y(¬α))
(C) ∀x (∀y(α) → ∃z(¬β))
(D) ∀x (∃y(¬α) → ∃z(¬β))
Solution:
The expression ¬∃x (∀y(α) ∧ ∀z(β)) can be rewritten as:
≡ ∀x (¬(∀y (α)) ∨ ¬(∀z (β)))
≡ ∀x (∃y (¬α) ∨ ∃z (¬β))
Now, let's analyze each option:
(A):
∀x(∃z(¬β) → ∀y(α))
≡ ∀x (¬∃z (¬β) ∨ ∀y (α))
≡ ∀x (∀z (β) ∨ ∀y (α))
(B):
∀x (∀z (β) → ∃y (¬α))
≡ ∀x (¬∀z (β) ∨ ∃y (¬α))
≡ ∀x (∃z (¬β) ∨ ∃y (¬α))
(C):
∀x (∀y (α) → ∃z (¬β))
≡ ∀x (¬∀y (α) ∨ ∃z (¬β))
≡ ∀x (∃y (¬α) ∨ ∃z (¬β))
(D):
∀x (∃y (¬α) → ∃z (¬β))
≡ ∀x (¬∃y (¬α) ∨ ∃z (¬β))
≡ ∀x (∀y (α) ∨ ∃z (¬β))
Conclusion:
Both options (A) and (D) are correct answers since they are not logically equivalent to the
original expression.
Problem 3: What is the correct translation of the following statement into
mathematical logic?
"Some real numbers are rational"
(A) ∃x(real(x) v rational(x))
(B) ∀x(real(x) → rational(x))
(C) ∃x(real(x) ^ rational(x))
(D) ∃x(rational(x) → real(x))
Solution: Domain: All numbers
A. There exist some numbers which are either real or rational.
B. All real numbers are rational.
C. There exist some numbers which are both real and rational.
D. There exist some numbers such that if they are rational then they are real.
Thus, option C is the correct option.
Problem 4: Which one of the following is the most appropriate logical formula to
represent the statement?
"Gold and silver ornaments are precious".
The following notations are used:
G(x): x is a gold ornament
S(x): x is a silver ornament
P(x): x is precious
(A) ∀x(P(x) → (G(x) ^ S(x))) (B) ∀x((G(x) ^ S(x)) → P(x))
(C) ∃x((G(x) ^ S(x)) → P(x)) (D) ∀x((G(x) v S(x)) → P(x))
Solution: Domain: All ornaments.
(A) For all ornaments x, if x is precious then it is both gold and silver.
(B) For all ornaments x, if x is both gold and silver then it is precious.
(C) For some ornaments x, if x is both gold and silver then it is precious.
(D) For all ornaments x, if x is either gold or silver then it is precious.
Thus, option D is the correct option.
Problem 5: Let Graph(x) be a predicate which denotes that x is a graph.
Let Connected(x) be a predicate which denotes that x is connected. Which of the
following first order logic sentences DOES NOT represent the statement: “Not every
graph is connected"?
(A) ~∀x ( Graph(x) ⇒ Connected(x)) (B) ∃x ( Graph(x) ^ ~Connected(x))
(C) ~∀x (~ Graph(x) v Connected(x)) (D) ∀x ( Graph(x) ⇒ ~Connected(x))
Solution:
"Not every graph is connected"
is equivalent to
"There is at least one graph which is not connected."
(A) ~∀x ( Graph(x) ⇒ Connected(x)) represents
"It is not the case that for all x, if x is a graph, then it is connected."
OR
"It is not the case that every graph is connected."
(B) ∃x ( Graph(x) ^ ~Connected(x)) represents
"There exists some x such that x is a graph and x is not connected."
OR
"There exists some graph which is not connected."
(C) ~∀x (~Graph(x) v Connected(x)) can be rewritten as
∃x( Graph(x) ^ ~Connected(x))
(D) ∀x ( Graph(x) ⇒ ~Connected(x)) represents
"For all x, if x is a graph then it is not connected."
OR
"Every graph is not connected."
Problem 6: The correct formula for the sentence, “Not all rainy days are cold” is
(A) ∀d(Rainy(d)∧¬Cold(d)) (C) ∃d(¬Rainy(d)→Cold(d))
(B) (D) ∃d(Rainy(d)∧¬Cold(d))
∀d(¬Rainy(d)→Cold(d))
Solution:
"Not all rainy days are cold" can be logically rewritten as:
"Some rainy days are not cold."
"Not all rainy days are cold" ≡ ¬∀d(Rainy(d) → Cold(d))
≡ ∃d ¬(Rainy(d) → Cold(d)))
≡ ∃d ¬(¬Rainy(d) v Cold(d))
≡ ∃d(Rainy(d) ∧ ¬Cold(d))
Therefore, option (D) is the correct answer.
Explanation of the other options:
(A) ∀d(Rainy(d) ∧ ¬Cold(d)): "All days are rainy and not cold"
(B) ∀d(¬Rainy(d) → Cold(d)): "If a day is not rainy, then it is cold for all days"
(C) ∃d(¬Rainy(d) → Cold(d)): "There exists a day such that if it is not rainy, then it is
cold"
