2

It's typically correct to say something like "all cats are beautiful" as ∀x(CAT(x)->BEAUTIFUL(x)). It is incorrect to say ∀x(CAT(x) & BEAUTIFUL(x)) because you're effectively saying "everything in the world is a beautiful cat". However, I have seen quantifiers used with set notation in some compsci classes (e.g. ∀x ∈ A , CAT(x)->BEAUTIFUL(x) where A is the set of animals.) If you're using this kind of notation, then would it be equally correct to translate "all cats are beautiful" as simply ∀x ∈ C , BEAUTIFUL(x) (where C is the set of cats)?

  • 1
    I'd say so, yes. – Raymond Timmermans Oct 14 '17 at 9:52
  • Mathematically, saying "for all X, [sometthing]" is incorrect because the universal quantifier requires a bounding set. In other words, the correct form is "for all X member of S, [something]". So you're correct, but mostly because your first two formulations are not mathematically valid. – barrycarter Oct 16 '17 at 15:32
  • @barrycarter What's wrong with unrestricted quantification? In the logic classes I studied, we were aware that restricted quantification was often better-behaved, but generally speaking "for all x in C, P(x)" was regarded as a shorthand for "for all x, x in C implies P(x)" – Ben Millwood Aug 17 at 8:40
  • @BenMillwood You run into things like Russell's Paradox if you allow things "for all x, if x is a set then...". The problem with "for all x" is that the nature of x can be arbitrarily strange, which leads to paradoxes. – barrycarter Aug 17 at 17:48
  • @barrycarter the paradox only arises when you permit the formation of the set of all x satisfying some arbitrary condition. It's not that unrestricted quantifiers are forbidden, it's just that you can't form sets from them, only subsets of "existing" sets. – Ben Millwood Aug 19 at 15:05
1

The most common way I've seen to do this is to just define the set of cats in the following way:

{X:Cx & Bx}

with C and B standing for "is a cat" and "is beautiful" respectively. This defines the set of all X that are cats and are beautiful.

For the sake of interest: if we consider all the Xs such that Cx and the Xs such that Bx as sets called "C" and "B", then the above definition is equivalent to the intersection of C and B: "C ∩ B".

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question though because if understand you correctly, this is the obvious way to rephrase "∀x(Cx-->Bx)", but no one else has given this answer. Assuming that the set of cats is the intersection of C and B does the same job of saying that for every object, if it's a cat then its beautiful.

  • Would it be the "union" or "intersection" of C and B in the paragraph before the last where it is called "intersection"? – Frank Hubeny Aug 16 at 16:20
  • I think intersection. let me fix that – Daniel Prendergast Aug 16 at 16:50
0

Restricted/relativized quantification is very common in 'everyday' mathematical practice. You can read more at:

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2101961/359302

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_(logic)#Equivalent_expressions

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Restricted_quantifier

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.