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
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.