How to prove ~($forall$x Q(x)) is logically equivalent to $exists$x(~Q(x)) using natural deduction for first...











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am thinking of assuming Q(x1) and then deriving to reach to a contradiction but I have not been able to do so.






logic first-order-logic natural-deduction







share|cite|improve this question
























  • Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
    – Arthur
    Nov 21 at 12:43












  • here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:51















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am thinking of assuming Q(x1) and then deriving to reach to a contradiction but I have not been able to do so.






logic first-order-logic natural-deduction







share|cite|improve this question
























  • Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
    – Arthur
    Nov 21 at 12:43












  • here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:51













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I am thinking of assuming Q(x1) and then deriving to reach to a contradiction but I have not been able to do so.






logic first-order-logic natural-deduction







share|cite|improve this question















I am thinking of assuming Q(x1) and then deriving to reach to a contradiction but I have not been able to do so.






logic first-order-logic natural-deduction




logic first-order-logic natural-deduction






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 21 at 12:45









Mauro ALLEGRANZA

63.8k448110




63.8k448110










asked Nov 21 at 12:41









user10143594

103




103












  • Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
    – Arthur
    Nov 21 at 12:43












  • here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:51


















  • Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
    – Arthur
    Nov 21 at 12:43












  • here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:51
















Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
– Arthur
Nov 21 at 12:43






Could you give us some more background? For instance, in my book, this is the definition of $forall$.
– Arthur
Nov 21 at 12:43














here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
– user10143594
Nov 21 at 12:51




here $forall$ stand for "for all" x that belong to domain of discourse.
– user10143594
Nov 21 at 12:51










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Hint



1st part, using Natural Deduction :



1) $exists x lnot Qx$ --- premise



2) $forall x Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qa$ --- assumed [b] from 1) by $exists$-elim



4) $Qa$ --- from 2) by $forall$-elim



5) $bot$ --- contradiction : from 3) and 4)



6) $bot$ --- from 1) and 3) and 5) by $exists$-elim, discharging [b]




7) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- from 2) and 6) by $lnot$-intro, discharging [a].





2nd part : quite similar, using Double Negation.



1) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- premise



2) $lnot exists x lnot Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qx$ --- assumed [b]



and so on ...






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:46











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007682%2fhow-to-prove-forallx-qx-is-logically-equivalent-to-existsxqx-usi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Hint



1st part, using Natural Deduction :



1) $exists x lnot Qx$ --- premise



2) $forall x Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qa$ --- assumed [b] from 1) by $exists$-elim



4) $Qa$ --- from 2) by $forall$-elim



5) $bot$ --- contradiction : from 3) and 4)



6) $bot$ --- from 1) and 3) and 5) by $exists$-elim, discharging [b]




7) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- from 2) and 6) by $lnot$-intro, discharging [a].





2nd part : quite similar, using Double Negation.



1) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- premise



2) $lnot exists x lnot Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qx$ --- assumed [b]



and so on ...






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:46















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Hint



1st part, using Natural Deduction :



1) $exists x lnot Qx$ --- premise



2) $forall x Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qa$ --- assumed [b] from 1) by $exists$-elim



4) $Qa$ --- from 2) by $forall$-elim



5) $bot$ --- contradiction : from 3) and 4)



6) $bot$ --- from 1) and 3) and 5) by $exists$-elim, discharging [b]




7) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- from 2) and 6) by $lnot$-intro, discharging [a].





2nd part : quite similar, using Double Negation.



1) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- premise



2) $lnot exists x lnot Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qx$ --- assumed [b]



and so on ...






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:46













up vote
0
down vote



accepted







up vote
0
down vote



accepted






Hint



1st part, using Natural Deduction :



1) $exists x lnot Qx$ --- premise



2) $forall x Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qa$ --- assumed [b] from 1) by $exists$-elim



4) $Qa$ --- from 2) by $forall$-elim



5) $bot$ --- contradiction : from 3) and 4)



6) $bot$ --- from 1) and 3) and 5) by $exists$-elim, discharging [b]




7) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- from 2) and 6) by $lnot$-intro, discharging [a].





2nd part : quite similar, using Double Negation.



1) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- premise



2) $lnot exists x lnot Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qx$ --- assumed [b]



and so on ...






share|cite|improve this answer














Hint



1st part, using Natural Deduction :



1) $exists x lnot Qx$ --- premise



2) $forall x Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qa$ --- assumed [b] from 1) by $exists$-elim



4) $Qa$ --- from 2) by $forall$-elim



5) $bot$ --- contradiction : from 3) and 4)



6) $bot$ --- from 1) and 3) and 5) by $exists$-elim, discharging [b]




7) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- from 2) and 6) by $lnot$-intro, discharging [a].





2nd part : quite similar, using Double Negation.



1) $lnot forall x Qx$ --- premise



2) $lnot exists x lnot Qx$ --- assumed [a]



3) $lnot Qx$ --- assumed [b]



and so on ...







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 21 at 13:14

























answered Nov 21 at 12:45









Mauro ALLEGRANZA

63.8k448110




63.8k448110












  • Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:46


















  • Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
    – user10143594
    Nov 21 at 12:46
















Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
– user10143594
Nov 21 at 12:46




Thanks. Can you also show for other way round?
– user10143594
Nov 21 at 12:46


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007682%2fhow-to-prove-forallx-qx-is-logically-equivalent-to-existsxqx-usi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
Read more

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Image
0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
Read more

Mont Emei

Image
Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
Read more