Homework 1b

Trần Trung Hiếu

MSSV:2310982

Ngày 23 tháng 1 năm 2024

SECTION 1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers

9.
a) We assume that this sentence is asserting that the same person has both
talents. Therefore we can write ∃ x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)).
b) Since "but" really means the same thing as "and" logically, this is ∃ x(P(x)
∧ ¬ Q(x))
c) This time we are making a universal statement: ∀ x(P(x) ∨ Q(x))
d) This sentence is asserting the nonexistence of anyone with either talent, so
we could write it as ¬∃ x(P(x) ∨ Q(x)). Alternatively, we can think of this as
asserting that everyone fails to have either of these talents, and we obtain the
logically equivalent answer ∀ x ¬ (P(x) ∨ Q(x)). Failing to have either talent is
equivalent to having neither talent (by De Morgan’s law), so we can also write
this as ∀ x((¬ P(x)) ∧ (¬ Q(x)). Note that it would not be correct to write ∀
x((¬ P(x)) ∨ (¬ Q(x)) nor to write ∀ x¬ (P(x) ∧ Q(x)).

10.
a) ∃ x(C(x) ∧ D(x) ∧ F(x)).
b) ∀ x(C(x) ∨ D(x) ∨ F(x))
c) ∃ x(C(x) ∧ F(x) ∧ ¬ D(x))
d) ¬ ∃ x(C(x) ∧ D(x) ∧ F(x)).
e) (∃ x C(x))∧ (∃ x D(x))∧ (∃ x F(x)).

33.
a) Let T(x) be the predicate that x can learn new tricks, and let the domain be
old dogs. Our original statement is ∃ x T(x). Its negation is ¬ ∃ x T(x), which
we must to rewrite in the required manner as ∀ x ¬ T(x). In English this reads
"Every old dog is unable to learn new tricks" or "All old dogs can’t learn new
tricks." (Note that this does not say that not all old dogs can learn new tricks-it
is saying something stronger than that.) More colloquially, we can say "No old
dogs can learn new tricks."
b) Let C(x) be the predicate that x knows calculus, and let the domain be rab-
bits. Our original statement is ¬ ∃ x C(x). Its negation is, of course, simply ∃ x
C(x). In English this reads "There is a rabbit that knows calculus.”

1
c) Let F(x) be the predicate that x can fly, and let the domain be birds. Our
original statement is ∀ x F(x). Its negation is ¬ ∀ x F(x) (i.e., not all birds
can fly), which we must to rewrite in the required manner as ∃ x ¬ F ( x) . In
English this reads "There is a bird who cannot fly."
d) Let T(x) be the predicate that x can talk, and let the domain be dogs. Our
original statement is ¬ ∃ xT(x). Its negation is, of course, simply ∃ xT(x). In
English this reads "There is a dog that talks."
e) Let F(x) and R(x) be the predicates that x knows French and knows Russian,
respectively, and let the domain be people in this class. Our original statement
is ¬ ∃ x(F(x) ∧ R(x)). Its negation is, of course, simply ∃ x(F(x) ∧ R(x)). In En-
glish this reads "There is someone in this class who knows French and Russian."

34.
a) Let S(x) be “x obeys the speed limit,” where the domain of discourse is drivers.
The original statement is ∃ x¬ S(x), the negation is ∀ x S(x), “All drivers obey
the speed limit.”
b) Let S(x) be “x is serious,” where the domain of discourse is Swedish movies.
The original statement is ∀ x S(x), the negation is ∃ x ¬ S(x), “Some Swedish
movies are not serious.”
c) Let S(x) be “x can keep a secret,” where the domain of discourse is people.
The original statement is ¬ ∃ x S(x), the negation is ∃ x S(x), “Some people can
keep a secret.”
d) Let A(x) be “x has a good attitude,” where the domain of discourse is people
in this class. The original statement is ∃ x ¬ A(x), the negation is ∀ x A(x),
“Everyone in this class has a good attitude.”

39.
a) If there is a printer that is both out of service and busy, then some job has
been lost.
b) If every printer is busy, then there is a job in the queue.
c) If there is a job that is both queued and lost, then some printer is out of
service.
d) If every printer is busy and every job is queued, then some job is lost.

44. We want propositional functions P and Q that are sometimes, but not
always, true (so that the second biconditional is F ↔ F and hence true), but
such that there is an x making one true and the other false. For example, we
can take P(x) to mean that x is an even number (a multiple of 2) and Q(x) to
mean that x is a multiple of 3. Then an example like x = 4 or x = 9 shows that
∀ x(P(x) ↔ Q(x)) is false.

45. Both are true precisely when at least one of P(x) and Q(x) is true for at
least one value of x in the domain (universe of discourse).

46.
a) There are two cases. If A is true, then (∀ xP(x)) ∨ A is true, and since P(x)

2
∨ A is true for all x, ∀ x(P(x)∨ A) is also true. Thus both sides of the logical
equivalence are true (hence equivalent). Now suppose that A is false. If P(x) is
true for all x, then the left-hand side is true. Furthermore, the right-hand side
is also true (since P(x) ∨ A is true for all x). On the other hand, if P(x) is false
for some x, then both sides are false. Therefore again the two sides are logically
equivalent.
b) There are two cases. If A is true, then (∃ xP(x)) ∨ A is true, and since P(x)
∨ A is true for some (really all) x, ∃ x(P(x) ∨ A) is also true. Thus both sides of
the logical equivalence are true (hence equivalent). Now suppose that A is false.
If P(x) is true for at least one x, then the left-hand side is true. Furthermore,
the right-hand side is also true (since P(x) ∨ A is true for that x). On the other
hand, if P(x) is false for all x, then both sides are false. Therefore again the two
sides are logically equivalent.

47. We can establish these equivalences by arguing that one side is true if
and only if the other side is true. For both parts, we will look at the two cases:
either A is true or A is false.
a) Suppose that A is true. Then the left-hand side is logically equivalent to ∀
xP(x), since the conjunction of any proposition with a true proposition has the
same truth value as that proposition. By similar reasoning the right-hand side
is equivalent to ∀ xP(x). Therefore the two propositions are logically equivalent
in this case; each one is true precisely when P(x) is true for every x. On the
other hand, suppose that A is false. Then the left-hand side is certainly false.
Furthermore, for every x, P(x) ∧ A is false, so the right-hand side is false as
well. Thus in all cases, the two propositions have the same truth value.
b) This problem is similar to part (a). If A is true, then both sides are logically
equivalent to ∃ xP( x). If A is false, then both sides are false.

61.
a) This is asserting that every person who is a baby is necessarily not logical: ∀
x(P(x) → ¬ Q(x)).
b) If a person can manage a crocodile, then that person is not despised: ∀ x(R(x)
→ ¬ S(x)).
c) Every person who is not logical is necessarily despised: ∀ x(¬ Q(x) → S(x)).
d) Every person who is a baby cannot manage a crocodile: ∀ x(P(x) → negR(x)).

62.
a) ∀ x(P(x) → ¬ S(x))
b) ∀ x(R(x) → S(x))
c) ∀ x(Q(x) → P(x))
d) ∀ x(Q(x) → ¬ R(x))

SECTION 1.5 Nested Quantifiers

17.
a) We need to rule out the possibility that the user has access to another mailbox

3
different from the one that is guaranteed: ∀u∃m(A(u, m)∧ ∀n(n̸= m →¬A(u,
n))), where A(u, m) means that user u has access to mailbox m.
b) ∃p∀e(H(e)→S(p,running))→ S(kernel,working correctly), where H(e) means
that error condition e is in effect and S(x,y) means that the status of xis y. Ob-
viously there are other ways to express this with different choices of predicates.
Note that "only if" is the converse of "if,” so the kernel’s working properly is
the conclusion, not the hypothesis.
c) ∀u∀s(E(s, .edu)→A(u,s)), where E(s,x) means that websites has extension x,
and A(u,s) means that user u can access website s

18.
a) ∀f (H(f) → ∃c A(c)), where A(x) means that console x is accessible, and H(x)
means that fault condition x is happening
b) (∀u∃m (A(m) ∧ S(u, m))) → ∀u R(u), where A(x) means that the archive
contains message x, S(x, y) means that user x sent message y , and R(x) means
that the e-mail address of user x can be retrieved
c) (∀b∃m D(m, b)) ↔ ∃p¬C(p), where D(x, y) means that mechanism x can
detect breach y , and C(x) means that process x has been compromised
d) ∀x∀y (x ̸= y → ∃p∃q (p ̸= q∧C(p, x, y)∧C(q, x, y))), where C(p, x, y) means
that path p connects endpoint x to endpoint y
e) ∀x ((∀u K(x, u)) ↔ x = SysAdm), where K(x, y) means that person x knows
the password of user y

34. The logical expression is asserting that the domain consists of at most
two members. (It is saying that whenever you have two unequal objects, any
object has to be one of those two. Note that this is vacuously true for domains
with one element.) Therefore any domain having one or two members will make
it true (such as the female members of the United States Supreme Court in
2005), and any domain with more than two members will make it false (such as
all members of the United States Supreme Court in 2005).

35. If the domain (universe of discourse) has at least four members, then
no matter what values are assigned to x, y, and z, there will always be another
member of the domain, different from those three, that we can assign to w to
make the statement true. Thus we can use a domain such as United States Sen-
ators. On the other hand, for any domain with three or fewer members, if we
assign all the members to x, y, and z (repeating some if necessary), then there
will be nothing left to assign to w to make the statement true. For this we can
use a domain such as your biological parents.

36.
a) Let L(x, y) mean that person x has lost y dollars playing the lottery. The
original statement is then ¬∃x∃y(y > 1000 ∧ L(x, y)). Its negation of course
is ∃x∃y(y > 1000 ∧ L(x, y)); someone has lost more than $1000 playing the
lottery.
b) Let C(x, y) mean that person x has chatted with person y . The given state-

4
ment is ∃x∃y(y ̸= x ∧ ∀z(z ̸= x → (z = y ↔ C(x, z)))). The negation is therefore
∀x∀y(y ̸= x → ∃z(z ̸= x ∧ ¬(z = y ↔ C(x, z)))). In English, everybody in this
class has either chatted with no one else or has chatted with two or more others.
c) Let E(x, y) mean that person x has sent e-mail to person y . The given state-
ment is ¬∃x∃y∃z(y ̸= z ∧x ̸= y ∧ x ̸= z ∧ ∀w(w ̸= x → (E(x, w) ↔ (w = y ∨
w = z)))). The negation is obviously ∃x∃y∃z(y ̸= z ∧ x ̸= y ∧ x ̸= z ∧∀w(w ̸=
x → (E(x, w) ↔ (w = y ∨ w = z)))). In English, some student in this class has
sent e-mail to exactly two other students in this class.
d) Let S(x, y) mean that student x has solved exercise y. The statement is ∃x∀y
S(x, y). The negation is ∀x∃y ¬S(x, y). In English, for every student in this class,
there is some exercise that he or she has not solved. (One could also interpret
the given statement as asserting that for every exercise, there exists a student—
perhaps a different one for each exercise—who has solved it. In that case the
order of the quantifiers would be reversed. Word order in English sometimes
makes for a little ambiguity.)
e) Let S(x, y) mean that student x has solved exercise y, and let B(y, z) mean
that exercise y is in section z of the book. The statement is ¬∃x∀z∃y(B(y, z)∧S(x,
y)). The negation is of course ∃x∀z∃y(B(y, z)∧S(x, y)). In English, some student
has solved at least one exercise in every section of this book.

47. We use the equivalences explained in Table 2 of Section 1.4, twice:

¬∃x∀yP(x, y) ≡ ∀x¬∀yP(x, y) ≡ ∀x∃y¬P(x, y)

SECTION 1.6 Rules of Inference

11. We are asked to show that whenever p1 , p2 , ... , pn are true, then q→
r must be true, given that we know that whenever p1 , p2 , ... , pn and q are
true, then r must be true. So suppose that p1 , p2 , ... , pn are true. We want to
establish that q → r is true. If q is false, then we are done, vacuously. Otherwise,
q is true, so by the validity of the given argument form, we know that r is true.

12. Applying Exercise 11, we want to show that the conclusion r follows from
the five premises (p ∧ t) → (r ∨ s), q → (u ∧ t), u → p, ¬s, and q . From q
and q → (u ∧ t) we get u ∧ t by modus ponens. From there we get both u and
t by simplification (and the commutative law). From u and u → p we get p by
modus ponens. From p and t we get p ∧ t by conjunction. From that and (p ∧
t) → (r ∨ s) we get r ∨ s by modus ponens. From that and ¬s we finally get r
by disjunctive syllogism.

23. The error occurs in step (5), because we cannot assume, as is being done
here, that the c that makes P true is the same as the c that makes Q true.

24. Steps 3 and 5 are incorrect; simplification applies to conjunctions, not

disjunctions.