Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

edited body
Source Link
Bumble
Bumble
  • 31.5k
  • 4
  • 35
  • 88

It is unusual to use a predicate such as U to indicate untrue. In classical logic a proposition is untrue if and only if its negation is true,. So, unless you are trying to do something cute with the semantics of truth and falsehood, it would be better to replace Uy with ¬y. That said, both your formulations are correct.

However, there is another issue. Your variable y is quantifying over propositions rather than things, so your expressions are not first order logic, but second order. If you want to translate your sentence into first order predicate logic, you could express it as an extended conjunction:

(∀x)(Kx → ((CxP → ¬P) ⋀ (CxQ → ¬Q) ⋀ (CxR → ¬R) ...))

This, of course, is unwieldy because there is no obvious limit to the extent of the conjunction. If you choose to live with the second order version you could run into paradoxes such as a version of the liar paradox, but then I suspect that is the intention.

It is unusual to use a predicate such as U to indicate untrue. In classical logic a proposition is untrue if and only if its negation is true, So, unless you are trying to do something cute with the semantics of truth and falsehood, it would be better to replace Uy with ¬y. That said, both your formulations are correct.

However, there is another issue. Your variable y is quantifying over propositions rather than things, so your expressions are not first order logic, but second order. If you want to translate your sentence into first order predicate logic, you could express it as an extended conjunction:

(∀x)(Kx → ((CxP → ¬P) ⋀ (CxQ → ¬Q) ⋀ (CxR → ¬R) ...))

This, of course, is unwieldy because there is no obvious limit to the extent of the conjunction. If you choose to live with the second order version you could run into paradoxes such as a version of the liar paradox, but then I suspect that is the intention.

It is unusual to use a predicate such as U to indicate untrue. In classical logic a proposition is untrue if and only if its negation is true. So, unless you are trying to do something cute with the semantics of truth and falsehood, it would be better to replace Uy with ¬y. That said, both your formulations are correct.

However, there is another issue. Your variable y is quantifying over propositions rather than things, so your expressions are not first order logic, but second order. If you want to translate your sentence into first order predicate logic, you could express it as an extended conjunction:

(∀x)(Kx → ((CxP → ¬P) ⋀ (CxQ → ¬Q) ⋀ (CxR → ¬R) ...))

This, of course, is unwieldy because there is no obvious limit to the extent of the conjunction. If you choose to live with the second order version you could run into paradoxes such as a version of the liar paradox, but then I suspect that is the intention.

Source Link
Bumble
Bumble
  • 31.5k
  • 4
  • 35
  • 88

It is unusual to use a predicate such as U to indicate untrue. In classical logic a proposition is untrue if and only if its negation is true, So, unless you are trying to do something cute with the semantics of truth and falsehood, it would be better to replace Uy with ¬y. That said, both your formulations are correct.

However, there is another issue. Your variable y is quantifying over propositions rather than things, so your expressions are not first order logic, but second order. If you want to translate your sentence into first order predicate logic, you could express it as an extended conjunction:

(∀x)(Kx → ((CxP → ¬P) ⋀ (CxQ → ¬Q) ⋀ (CxR → ¬R) ...))

This, of course, is unwieldy because there is no obvious limit to the extent of the conjunction. If you choose to live with the second order version you could run into paradoxes such as a version of the liar paradox, but then I suspect that is the intention.