1

The idea is to proof validity of

∃x(Fx ^ Gx) / ∃xFx

To do this I understand you assume invalid and get a contradiction. I have the answer but I don't understand the wording

∃x(Fx ^ Gx) is true-in-I, which means some object o∈D satisfies Fx ^ Gx, which means o is such that both o∈ext(F) and o∈ext(G).

∃xFx is false-in-I, which means every object o∈D is such that o∉ext(F).

Since what holds of o` holds of everything in the domain of I, and since o∉D, o∉ext(F). Contradiction, so there is no such interpretation. Thus valid.

what I don't get is the last statement "since what holds of o' holds of everything in the domain of I" how does that go to "since o∉D" when we are talking about o' and not o and we had established o is contained in D already (I get we need the contradiction, but from where was this generated?)

3

Start with "intuition" :

if there is a black cat, then there is a cat

is an argument that "sound" quite correct.

To prove it "semantically" we have to assume an interpretation I in which the premise is true.

This means that there is an object o of the domain of the interpretation I for which both F and G holds.

But this implies that for that object o the "property" F holds, and this boils down to say that in I there exists an x such that F(x) is true.

Thus, being I an interpretation whatever, we have proved it for all interpretations; i.e. in every interpretation in which the premise is true, also the conclusion is, and this is the definition of logical consequence :

A ⊨ B.


Note

In proving it by contradiction, we have to assume that the conclusion ∃xFx is false; this amount to saying that for every object x in the domain D of the interpretation, we have that F does not hold for it.

But this is in contradiction with the fact implied by the assumption that there is o ∈ D such that F holds for it.

1

'o∉D' is a typo, which should be corrected to 'o∈D'. The point simply is this: Since by assumption ∃xFx is false in I we have o*∉ext(F) for all o*∈D. We already know that there is some o∈D. So, o∉ext(F). But wait! Since o satisfies Fx&Gx we have o∈ext(F). So, o∈ext(F) and o∉ext(F). Contradiction.

Actually I think it more elegant to prove the contrapositive. If no o'∈D is such that o'∈ext(F), then it's not the case that both o'∈ext(F) and o'∈ext(G). So, nothing from D satisfies Fx&Gx. So,∃x(Fx & Gx) is false in I.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.