0

I need a quick check on my homework to see if any questions are wrong. We just finished learning quantifiers (for all, for every) yesterday and the assignment is due today at 4pm MST. If it is wrong, please point me in the right direction or the answer/why.

enter image description here

My answers:

(a) Ch → Ce

(b) L(e,a) ∨ ¬ L(a,e)

(c) [(L(m,a) ∧ Ca) → L(m,...) NOT DONE

(d) ∀x(Cx → L(x,m))

(e) ∀x(Cx → L(m,x) ∧ ∃x(¬Cx → L(a,x))

(f) ∀(Cx → ¬Rx) ∧ &all;y(Ry → ¬Cy)

(g) ∃x[(Cx ∧ Ry) ∧ L(x,y)]

(h) ∀x∃y[((Rx ∧ Cy) → L(x,y)) ∧ ¬L(y,a)]

(i) ∃x∀yL(x,y) → ∀y∃xL(y,x)

(j) (L(m,a) ∧ Ce) → [Rm →∃x∃yL(x,y)]

(k) ∃x[(Cx ∧ L(x,m)) → L(e,m)]

(i) L(m,h) ↔ ∃x(Rx ∧ L(x,e))

3

(c) Requires an existential quantifier on the part that is not done.

(d) You have the implication the wrong way round. You have written "all Celts like Marcus". "Only Celts like Marcus" means that if x likes Marcus, x is a Celt.

(e) Two errors here: the first implication is the wrong way round, as in (d), and the second implication should be a conjunction.

(g) This is missing a quantifier. The variable y needs to be universally quantified.

(h) Two errors here: in the first conjunct, the Cy should be on the right of the implication, not the left, otherwise the implication is trivially true in the event that there exists at least one non-Celt. The second conjunct has the wrong variable in it.

(i) Come on, you're not trying here: where are the predicates for Roman and Celt?

(j) Looks like a typo: you have 'a' instead of 'e'.

  • For (g) would the order of the universal and existential quantifier matter ? – K.Wong Nov 9 '16 at 22:11
  • For (h) I now have.. (h) ∀x∃y[((Rx ∧ L(x,y)) → Cy) ∧ ¬L(x,a)] Is this correct? – K.Wong Nov 9 '16 at 22:14
  • I think for (g) you need two separate existential quantifiers as well as a universal. It means there exists at least one Celt who likes all Romans and at least one Celt who does not like all Romans. In (h) you have moved the L(x,y) term to the left of the implication. Only the Rx belongs on the left. – Bumble Nov 9 '16 at 22:46
  • I still don't understand how (g) would be sumbolized /: – K.Wong Nov 9 '16 at 22:52
  • Try: ∃x∃y∃z∀w [ Cx ∧ Rz ∧ ¬Lxz) ∧ Cy ∧ (Rw → Lyw) ] – Bumble Nov 10 '16 at 2:35

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.