The Foundations: Logic

and Proofs
Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic
Chapter Summary
Propositional Logic
Propositional Equivalences
Predicate Logic and Quantifiers
Nested Quantifiers
Rules of Inference
Proofs
Proof methods and Strategy
Predicates and Quantifiers
Section 1.3
Section Summary
Predicates (vị ngữ)
Variables (Biến)
Quantifiers (lượng hóa)
Universal Quantifier (lượng hóa phổ dụng)
Existential Quantifier (lượng hóa tồn tại)
Negating Quantifiers (lượng hóa phủ định)
De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
Translating English to Logic
Propositional Logic Not Enough
If we have:
“All men are mortal.”
“Socrates is a man.”
Does it follow that “Socrates is mortal?”
Can’t be represented in propositional logic.
Need a language that talks about objects,
their properties, and their relations.
Introducing Predicate Logic
Consider the sentence:
“x is greater than 10”

SUBJEC PREDICATE
T P
x P
(Proposition
al
P(x): “x is greater than 10” Function)

P(x) is the value of propositional function P at x.

Introducing Predicate Logic
Predicate logic uses the following new
features:
Variables: x, y, z
Predicates: P(x), M(x)
Quantifiers (to be covered in a few slides):
Propositional functions are a generalization of
propositions.
They contain variables and a predicate, e.g., P(x)
Variables can be replaced by elements from their
domain.
Propositional Functions
Propositional functions become propositions (and
have truth values) when their variables are each
replaced by a value from the domain
The statement P(x) is said to be the value of the

For example, let P(x) denote “x > 0” and the domain

propositional function P at x.

be the integers. Then:

P(-3) is false.
P(0) is false.
P(3) is true.
Often the domain is denoted by U. So in this
example U is the integers.
Examples of Propositional Functions
 Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and U (for all three
variables) be the integers. Find these truth values:
R(2,-1,5)
Solution: R(2,-1,5): “2-1=5” is False.
R(3,4,7)

R(x, 3, z)
Solution:

Solution:
 Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the integers.
Find these truth values:
Q(2,-1,3)
Solution:
Q(3,4,7)

Q(x, 3, z)
Solution:

Solution:
Quantifiers
We need quantifiers to express the meaning of English
words including all and some:
“All men are Mortal.”
“Some cats do not have fur.”
The two most important quantifiers are:
Universal Quantifier, “For all,” symbol: 
Existential Quantifier, “There exists,” symbol: 
We write as in x P(x) and x P(x).
x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for every x in the domain.
x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for some x in the domain.
The quantifiers are said to bind the variable x in these
expressions.
Universal Quantifier
x P(x) is read as
“For all x in the domain, P(x)”
or
“For every x in the domain, P(x)”

If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then

Examples:
1)

If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the positive

x P(x) is false.

integers, then
2)

If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers,

x P(x) is true.

then  x P(x) is false.

3)
Existential Quantifier
x P(x) is read as
“For some x in the domain, P(x)”,
or as “There is a x in the domain such that P(x),”
or “For at least one x in the domain, P(x).”

If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x

Examples:
1.

If P(x) denotes “x < 0” and U is the positive integers,

P(x) is true. It is also true if U is the positive integers.

then
2.

If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then

x P(x) is false.
3.
x P(x) is true.
Properties of Quantifiers
The truth value of x P(x) and  x P(x) depend on
both the propositional function P(x) and on the
domain U.
Examples:

“x < 2”, then x P(x) is true, but  x P(x) is

1. If U is the positive integers and P(x) is the statement

false.

“x < 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true.

2. If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement

3. If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement

“x > 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are
true. But if P(x) is the statement “x < 2”, then both x
P(x) and  x P(x) are false.
Precedence of Quantifiers
The quantifiers  and  have higher

For example, x P(x) ∨ Q(x) means (x

precedence than all the logical operators.

P(x))∨ Q(x)
x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) means something different.
Unfortunately, often people write x P(x) ∨
Q(x) when they mean  x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)).
Translating from English to Logic
Example 1: Translate the following sentence into
predicate logic:
“Every student in this class has taken a course in
Logic.”
Solution:
- First decide on the domain U:
U is all students in this class
- The define a propositional function J(x):
J(x): “x has taken a course in Logic”

x J(x).
- and translate the sentence as
Translating from English to Logic
Example 2: Translate the following sentence
into predicate logic: “Some student in this
class has taken a course in Logic.”
Solution:
- the domain U is all students in this class
- J(x): “x has taken a course in Logic”

x J(x)
- translate as
Returning to the Socrates Example
Introduce the propositional functions Man(x)
denoting “x is a man” and Mortal(x) denoting
“x is mortal.” Specify the domain as all
people.
The two premises are:

The conclusion is:

Later we will show how to prove that the

conclusion follows from the premises.
Equivalences in Predicate Logic
Statements involving predicates and
quantifiers are logically equivalent if and only
if they have the same truth value
for every predicate substituted into these
statements and
for every domain used for the variables in the

The notation S ≡T indicates that S and T are

expressions.

logically equivalent.
Example: x ¬¬S(x) ≡ x S(x)
Example

Proof:
Thinking about Quantifiers as Conjunctions
and Disjunctions
 If the domain is finite, a universally quantified proposition is
equivalent to a conjunction of propositions without quantifiers
and an existentially quantified proposition is equivalent to a

 If U consists of the integers 1,2, and 3:

disjunction of propositions without quantifiers.

 Even if the domains are infinite, you can still think of the
quantifiers in this fashion, but the equivalent expressions
without quantifiers will be infinitely long.
Negating Quantified Expressions
Consider x J(x)
“Every student in your class has taken a course in

Here J(x) is “x has taken a course in Logic” and

Logic.”

the domain is students in your class.

Negating the original statement gives “It is not
the case that every student in your class has
taken Logic.” This implies that “There is a

Symbolically ¬x J(x) and x ¬J(x) are

student in your class who has not taken Logic.”

equivalent
Negating Quantified Expressions
(continued)
Now Consider  x J(x)
“There is a student in this class who has taken a

Where J(x) is “x has taken a course in Logic.”

course in Logic.”

Negating the original statement gives “It is not

the case that there is a student in this class
who has taken Logic.” This implies that “Every

Symbolically ¬ x J(x) and  x ¬J(x) are

student in this class has not taken Logic”

equivalent
De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
The rules for negating quantifiers are:

The reasoning in the table shows that:

These are important!

Translation from English to Logic
Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Phú
Quốc.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x has visited Phú Quốc”

U be all people.
and S(x) denote “x is a student in this class,” and

x (S(x) ∧ M(x))
2. “Every student in this class has visited Hạ Long
or Phú Quốc.”
Solution: Add C(x) denoting “x has visited Hạ

x (S(x)→ (M(x)∨C(x)))
Long.”
Lewis Carroll Example
Charles Lutwidge
Dodgson
(AKA Lewis Caroll)
 The first two are called premises and the third(1832-1898)
is called the
conclusion.
1. “All lions are fierce.”
2. “Some lions do not drink coffee.”
3. “Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee.”
 Here is one way to translate these statements to predicate
logic. Let P(x), Q(x), and R(x) be the propositional
functions “x is a lion,” “x is fierce,” and “x drinks coffee,”

1. x (P(x)→ Q(x))
respectively.

2. x (P(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
3. x (Q(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
 Later we will see how to prove that the conclusion follows
from the premises.
Key terms
For next lesson
1. Nested quantifier