Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMisael Largent Modified over 2 years ago

2
Methods of Proof for Quantifiers Chapter 12 Language, Proof and Logic

3
Valid quantifier steps 12.1 Universal elimination (instantiation): From xP(x) infer P(c) Existential introduction (generalization): From P(c) infer xP(x) 1. x[Cube(x) Large(x)] 2. x[Large(x) LeftOf(x,b)] 3. Cube(d) 4. x[Large(x) LeftOf(x,b)] 3 says that d is a cube. And 1 says that all cubes are large. Thus, d is large. But 2 says that every large object is to the left of b. So, d is to the left of b. To summarize, d is large and is to the left of b. Thus, there is a large object to the left of b. where c is the name of some object of the domain of discourse Let us think about whether there is any similarity with -elim and -intro.

4
The method of existential instantiation 12.2 Existential instantiation (elimination): Once you have proven xP(x) (or have it as a premise), you can select a “neutral” (not used elsewhere) name d and use P(d) as a valid assumption. 1. x[Cube(x) Large(x)] 2. x[Large(x) LeftOf(x,b)] 3. xCube(x) 4. x[Large(x) LeftOf(x,b)] 3 says that there is a cube. Let d be such a cube, i.e. assume Cube(d) (is true). 1 says that all cubes are large. Thus, d is large. But 2 says that every large object is to the left of b. So, d is to the left of b. To summarize, d is large and is to the left of b. Thus, there is a large object to the left of b. Important: If we had selected d=b, we would have been able to “prove” xLeftOf(x,x)! Let us think about whether there is any similarity with -elim.

5
The method of general conditional proof 12.3.a Universal generalization (introduction): Once you have proven P(d) for some “neutral” (not used elsewhere) name d (denoting a “totally arbitrary” object), you can conclude xP(x). Consider any object d. By 1, d is large. But, by 2, every large object is in the same row as b. So, d is in the same row as b. As d was arbitrary, we conclude that every object is in the same row as b. Important: The “arbitrary” object 1. Cube(b) d indeed has to be arbitrary. Things 2. x[Cube(x) Large(x)] will go wrong if you select d=b here 3. xLarge(x) 1. xLarge(x) 2. x[Large(x) SameRow(x,b)] 3. xSameRow(x,b) Let us think about whether there is any similarity with -intro.

6
The method of general conditional proof 12.3.b General conditional proof: Once you have proven Q(d) from the assumption P(d) for some “neutral” (not used elsewhere) name d (denoting a “totally arbitrary” object), you can conclude x[P(x) Q(x)]. Let us think about why universal generalization in fact makes this rule redundant. 1. x[Cube(x) SameRow(x,b)] 2. x[SameRow(x,b) Small(x)] 3. x[Cube(x) Small(x)] Consider any object d, and assume d is a cube. 1 says that every cube is in the same row as b. So, d is in the same row as b. But, by 2, everything in the same row as b is small. So, d is small. As d was arbitrary, we conclude that every cube is small.

7
Proofs involving mixed quantifiers 12.4.a 1. y [ Girl(y) x ( Boy(x) Likes(x,y) )] 2. x [ Boy(x) y ( Girl(y) Likes(x,y) )] Consider an arbitrary boy d. By 1, there is a girl who is liked by every boy. Let c be such a girl. So, d likes c. That is, d likes some girl. As d was arbitrary, we conclude that every boy likes some girl. 1. x [ Boy(x) y ( Girl(y) Likes(x,y) )] 2. y [ Girl(y) x ( Boy(x) Likes(x,y) )] Pseudo-proof: Consider an arbitrary boy d. By 1, d likes some girl. Let c be such a girl. Thus, d likes c. Since d was arbitrary, we conclude that every boy likes c. So, there is a girl (specifically, c) who is liked by every boy.

8
Proofs involving mixed quantifiers 12.4.b REMEMBER Let P(x), Q(x) be wffs. 1.Existential Instantiation: If you have proven xP(x) then you may choose a new constant symbol c to stand for any object satisfying P(x) and so you may assume P(c). 2. General Conditional Proof: If you want to prove x[P(x) Q(x)] then you may choose a new constant symbol c, assume P(c), and prove Q(c), making sure that Q does not contain any names introduced by existential instantiation after the assumption of P(c). 3. Universal Generalization: If you want to prove xQ(x) then you may choose a new constant symbol c and prove Q(c), making sure that Q does not contain any names introduced by existential instantiation after the introduction of c.

9
Proofs involving mixed quantifiers 12.4.c Euclid’s Theorem: x y[y x Prime(y)] Proof. Consider an arbitrary natural number n. Our goal is to show that y[y n Prime(y)], from which Euclid’s theorem follows by universal generalization. Let k be the product of all the prime numbers less than n. Thus each prime with

10
Proofs involving mixed quantifiers 12.4.d The Barber Paradox: x y [Shave(x,y) Shave(y,y)] The domain of discourse is the set of all men in a small village. Proof. Assume, for a contradiction, that 1. x y [Shave(x,y) Shave(y,y)] Let b be a man (barber) such that 2. y [Shave(b,y) Shave(y,y)] is true. By universal instantiation from 2, 3. Shave(b,b) Shave(b,b). But this is (indeed) a contradiction.

Similar presentations

OK

Section 3.3: Mathematical Induction Mathematical induction is a proof technique that can be used to prove theorems of the form: n Z +,P(n) We have.

Section 3.3: Mathematical Induction Mathematical induction is a proof technique that can be used to prove theorems of the form: n Z +,P(n) We have.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on natural resources and conservation degree Ppt on indian textile industries in mauritius Ppt on parts of tenses Ppt on nepal culture Ppt on resistance temperature detector definition Ppt on grease lubrication intervals Ppt on network security basics Ppt on social networking dangers Download ppt on my role model Ppt on issue of shares and debentures