Note: Your browser may not currently support MathML. See our browser support page for additional details. You can always view the correct math in the PDF version.
Throughout these exercises,
Consider the binary relation
List all the ordered pairs in the relation.
Display the relation as a directed graph.
Display the relation in tabular form.
Is the relation reflexive? symmetric? transitive?
How would you define
List the set of triples in the relation on the domain
Generalize the
previous problem
to describe how you can represent any
Are each of the following formulas valid, i.e., true for all interpretations? (Remember that the relation names are just names in the formula; don't assume the name has to have any bearing on their interpretation.)
[Practice problem
Suppose we wanted to represent the count of neighboring pirates
with a binary relation, such that when location
If we only allow binary relations to be subsets of
a domain crossed with itself,
then what must the domain be
for this new relation
If we further introduced another relation,
The relation needs to accept locations as well as numbers,
so the domain is
The difficulty is that it's possible to ask about
nonsensical combinations like
Determine whether the relation
For each of the following, if the statement is true, explain why, and if the statement is false, give a counter-example relation.
If
If
If
If
If
If
If
Let
Express each of these quantifications in English.
Which of these mean the same thing?
Let
A classmate has a cat, a dog, and a ferret.
All your classmates have a cat, a dog, or a ferret.
At least one of your classmates has a cat and a ferret, but not a dog.
None of your classmates has a cat, a dog, and a ferret.
For each of the three animals, there is a classmate of yours that has one.
Determine the truth value of each of these statements if the domain is all real numbers. Where appropriate, give a witness.
Let
No ducks are willing to waltz.
No officers ever decline to waltz.
All my poultry are ducks.
My poultry are not officers.
Does the fourth item follow from the first three taken together? Argue informally; you don't need to use the algebra or inference rules for first-order logic here.
You come home one evening
to find your roommate exuberant because
they have managed to prove that there is an even prime number
bigger than two.
More precisely, they have a correct proof of
…and realize the formula is indeed true
for that interpretation.
Briefly explain why.
You don't need to give a formal proof using Boolean algebra or
inference rules; just give a particular value for
Is the formula still true when restricted to the domain of natural numbers two or less? Briefly explain why or why not.
Is the formula still true when restricted to the empty domain? Briefly explain why or why not.
Give a formula that correctly captures the notion “ there is an even prime number bigger than 2 ”.
For the sentence
Translate the following conversational English statements
into first-order logic, using the suggested predicates,
or inventing appropriately-named ones if none provided.
(You may also freely use
Write a formula for each of the following.
Use the two binary relations
Two interpretations are considered fundamentally the same (or isomorphic) if you can map one interpretation to the other simply by a consistent renaming of domain elements.
[Practice problem
Find two fundamentally different interpretations that satisfy the statement “There exists one person who is liked by two people”.
One interpretation that satisfies this is
a domain of three people Alice, Bob, Charlie,
with the
Here's another interpretation that is the same except for renaming,
and thus not fundamentally different:
a domain of three people Alyssa, Bobby, Chuck,
with the
Here's an interpretation that is
fundamentally different:
a domain of three people Alice, Bob, Charlie,
with the
English is fuzzy enough that it is unclear whether “one” and “two” are meant as exact counts. The above two examples each assumed they are.
For the four “Musketeer” formulas from
a previous exercise,
find three fundamentally different interpretations
of
Depict each of these interpretations as a graph. Draw three circles (nodes) representing the three people, and an arrow (edge) from a person to each person they like. (You can glance at Rosen Section 9.1, Figure 8 for an example.)
Translate the following statements into first-order logic.
The domain is the set of natural numbers, and the binary relation
You may assume that
The sequence is sorted in non-decreasing order,
e.g.,
Some binary relations can be viewed as the encoding of a unary
function, where the first element of the ordered pair represents
the function's value.
For instance, in a previous exercise
we encoded the binary function addition
as a ternary relation
Write a first-order formula describing the properties
that a binary relation
Alternation of quantifiers: Determine the truth of each of the following sentences in each of the indicated domains.
Four sentences:
Four domains:
Determine the truth of all sixteen combinations of the four statements and four domains.
Translate the following into first-order logic:
“
Raspberry sherbet with hot fudge (
What is the intended domain for your formula? What is a relation which makes this statement true? One which makes it false?
Even allowing for ellision, the list of WaterWorld domain axioms is incomplete, in a sense. The game reports how many pirates exist in total, but that global information is not reflected in the propositions or axioms. We had the same problem with the propositional logic domain axioms
The puzzle game of Sudoku is played on a
Like WaterWorld, throughout the game, some of the values have not been discovered, although they are determined. You start with some numbers revealed, enough to guarantee that the rest of the board is uniquely determined by the constraints. Thus, like in WaterWorld, when deducing the value of another location, what has been revealed so far would serve as premises in a proof.
Fortunately, there are the same number of rows, columns, subgrids,
and values.
So, our domain is
To model the game, we will use the following relations:
Provide domain axioms for Sudoku, and briefly explain them. These will model the row, column, and subgrid constraints. In addition, you should include constraints on our above relations, such as that each location holds one value.
Some of the first-order equivalences are redundant. For each of the following, prove the equivalence using the other equivalences.
Assuming a non-empty domain,
We can characterize a prime number as
a number
A student claims that
Simplify the formula
[Practice problem
Prove that syllogisms are valid inferences. In other words, show
that
| 1 | Premise | |
| 2 | Premise | |
| 3 | ∀Elim, line 1 | |
| 4 | ⇒Elim, lines 2,3 |
What is wrong with the following
“proof” of
| 1 | subproof: | |||
| 1.a | Premise for subproof | |||
| 1.b | ∃Elim, line 1.a | |||
| 2 | ⇒Intro, line 1 | |||
Using the inference rules, formally prove the last part of the previous problem about ducks and such.
Give an inference rule proof of