Logic & Mathematics Reasoning

Discrete Mathematics

Lecturer: Quang-Thai Ho
Logic
• Crucial for mathematical reasoning
• Important for program design
• Used for designing electronic circuitry

• (Propositional) Logic is a system based on propositions.

• A proposition is a (declarative) statement that is either true or false (not
both).
• We say that the truth value of a proposition is either true (T) or false (F).
• Corresponds to 1 and 0 in digital circuits
The Statement/Proposition Game

“Elephants are bigger than mice.”

Is this a statement? yes

Is this a proposition? yes

What is the truth value

of the proposition? true
The Statement/Proposition Game

“520 < 111”

Is this a statement? yes

Is this a proposition? yes

What is the truth value

of the proposition? false
The Statement/Proposition Game
“y > 5”
Is this a statement? yes
Is this a proposition? no

Its truth value depends on the value of y, but this

value is not specified.
We call this type of statement a propositional
function or open sentence.
The Statement/Proposition Game

“Today is January 27 and 99 < 5.”

Is this a statement? yes

Is this a proposition? yes

What is the truth value

of the proposition? false
The Statement/Proposition Game

“Please do not fall asleep.”

Is this a statement? no
It’s a request.

Is this a proposition? no

Only statements can be propositions.

The Statement/Proposition Game
“If the moon is made of cheese,
then I will be rich.”
Is this a statement? yes

Is this a proposition? yes

What is the truth value

of the proposition? probably true
The Statement/Proposition Game
“x < y if and only if y > x.”
Is this a statement? yes
Is this a proposition? yes
… because its truth value does not depend on specific values of x
and y.

What is the truth value true

of the proposition?
Combining Propositions

• As we have seen in the previous examples, one or

more propositions can be combined to form a single
compound proposition.
• We formalize this by denoting propositions with
letters such as p, q, r, s, and introducing several logical
operators or logical connectives.
Logical Operators (Connectives)
We will examine the following logical operators:
• Negation (NOT, )
• Conjunction (AND, )
• Disjunction (OR, )
• Exclusive-or (XOR,  )
• Implication (if – then, → )
• Biconditional (if and only if,  )
Truth tables can be used to show how these operators can combine
propositions to compound propositions.
Negation (NOT)
Unary Operator, Symbol: 

P  P
true (T) false (F)
false (F) true (T)
Conjunction (AND)
Binary Operator, Symbol: 

P Q P Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Disjunction (OR)
• Binary Operator, Symbol: 

P Q P Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Exclusive Or (XOR)
• Binary Operator, Symbol: 

P Q PQ
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Implication (if - then)
Binary Operator, Symbol: →

P Q P→Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Biconditional (if and only if)
Binary Operator, Symbol: 

P Q PQ
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Statements and Operators
Statements and operators can be combined in any way to
form new statements.
P Q P Q (P)(Q)
T T F F F
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T T
Statements and Operations
Statements and operators can be combined in any way to
form new statements.
P Q PQ (PQ) (P)(Q)
T T T F F
T F F T T
F T F T T
F F F T T
Exercises
• Construct a truth table for the proposition ¬P  (Q  R )
• To take discrete mathematics, you must have taken calculus or a
course in computer science.
• When you buy a new car from Acme Motor Company, you get $2000
back in cash or a 2% car loan.
• School is closed if more than 2 feet of snow falls or if the wind chill is
below -100.
Exercises
• Construct a truth table for the proposition ¬P  (Q  R )
P Q R ¬P QR ¬P (Q  R)
0 0 0 1 0 1
Exercises
To take discrete mathematics, you must have taken
calculus or a course in computer science.

• P: take discrete mathematics

• Q: take calculus
• R: take a course in computer science
P→QR
Problem with proposition R
• What if I want to represent “take compiler design”?
Exercises
When you buy a new car from Acme Motor Company,
you get $2000 back in cash or a 2% car loan.

• P: buy a car from Acme Motor Company

• Q: get $2000 cash back
• R: get a 2% car loan
P→QR
Why use XOR here? – example of ambiguity of natural languages
Exercises
School is closed if more than 2 feet of snow falls or if
the wind chill is below -100.

• P: School is closed
• Q: 2 feet of snow falls
• R: wind chill is below -100
QR→P
Precedence among operators:
, , , →, 
Equivalent Statements
The statements (PQ) and (P)  (Q) are logically equivalent, since they have the
same truth table, or put it in another way, (PQ) (P)  (Q) is always true.

P Q (PQ) (P)(Q) (PQ)(P)(Q)

T T F F T
T F T T T
F T T T T
F F T T T
Tautologies and Contradictions
• A tautology is a statement that is always true.
• Examples:
• R(R)
• (PQ)  (P)( Q)
• A contradiction is a statement that is always false.
• Examples:
• R(R)
• ((P  Q)  (P)  (Q))
• The negation of any tautology is a contradiction, and the negation of any
contradiction is a tautology.
Equivalence

• Definition: two propositional statements S1 and S2 are said

to be (logically) equivalent, denoted S1  S2 if
• They have the same truth table, or
• S1  S2 is a tautology
• Equivalence can be established by
• Constructing truth tables
• Using equivalence laws (Table 5 in Section 1.2)
Equivalence
Equivalence laws
1. Domination laws PF F
PT T
2. Identity laws PT P
PF P
3. Idempotent laws PP P
PP P
4. Double negation law  ( P)  P
5. Complement laws PP T
PP F
Equivalence
6. Commutative laws PQ QP
PQ QP
7. Associative laws P  Q  R  (P  Q)  R  P  (Q  R)
P  Q  R  (P  Q)  R  P  (Q  R)
8. Distributive laws P  (Q  R) (P  Q)  (P  R)
P  (Q  R) (P  Q)  (P  R)
9. De Morgan’s laws  (P  Q)  ( P)  ( Q)
 (P  Q)  ( P)  ( Q)
9. Absorption laws P  (P  Q)  P
P  (P  Q)  P
10. Law with implication P→QPQ
Exercises
• Show that P → Q   P  Q: by truth table
• Show that (P → Q)  (P → R)  P → (Q  R): by equivalence laws
(p28-29):
• Show that  (Q → P)  (P  Q)  Q: by equivalence laws
• Law with implication on both sides
• Distribution laws
Summary, Sections 1.1, 1.2
• Proposition
• Statement, Truth value,
• Proposition, Propositional symbol, Open proposition
• Operators
• Define by truth tables
• Composite propositions
• Tautology and contradiction
• Equivalence of propositional statements
• Definition
• Proving equivalence (by truth table or equivalence laws)
Propositional Functions & Predicates

• Propositional function (open sentence): statement involving one or

more variables, e.g.: x-3 > 5.
• Let us call this propositional function P(x), where P is the predicate
and x is the variable.
What is the truth value of P(2) ? false
What is the truth value of P(8) ? false
What is the truth value of P(9) ? true
When a variable is given a value, it is said to be instantiated
Truth value depends on value of variable
Propositional Functions
• Let us consider the propositional function Q(x, y, z) defined as: x + y = z.
• Here, Q is the predicate and x, y, and z are the variables.

What is the truth value of Q(2, 3, 5) ? true

What is the truth value of Q(0, 1, 2) ? false
What is the truth value of Q(9, -9, 0) ? true

A propositional function (predicate) becomes a

proposition when all its variables are instantiated.
Propositional Functions
Other examples of propositional functions
Person(x), which is true if x is a person
Person(Peter) = T
Person(dolly-the-sheep) = F
CSCourse(x), which is true if x is a computer
science course
CSCourse(Compiler) = T
CSCourse(Chinese) = F
How do we say All humans are mortal
One CS course
Universal Quantification
Let P(x) be a predicate (propositional function).

Universally quantified sentence:

For all x in the universe of discourse P(x) is true.

Using the universal quantifier :

x P(x) “for all x P(x)” or “for every x P(x)”

(Note: x P(x) is either true or false, so it is a proposition, not a

propositional function.)
Universal Quantification
Example: Let the universe of discourse be all people
S(x): x is a YZU student.
G(x): x is genius.
What does x (S(x) → G(x)) mean ?
“If x is a YZU student, then x is a genius.” or
“All YZU students are geniuses.”
If the universe of discourse is all YZU students, then the same
statement can be written as
x G(x)
Existential Quantification
Existentially quantified sentence:
There exists an x in the universe of discourse for which P(x) is true.

Using the existential quantifier :

x P(x) “There is an x such that P(x).”
“There is at least one x such that P(x).”

(Note: x P(x) is either true or false, so it is a proposition, but no

propositional function.)
Existential Quantification
Example:
P(x): x is a YZU professor.
G(x): x is a genius.

What does x (P(x)  G(x)) mean ?

“There is an x such that x is a YZU professor and x is a genius.”

or
“At least one YZU professor is a genius.”
Quantification
Another example:
Let the universe of discourse be the real numbers.

What does xy (x + y = 320) mean ?

“For every x there exists a y so that x + y = 320.”

Is it true? yes

Is it true for the natural numbers? no

Disproof by Counterexample

• A counterexample to x P(x) is an object c so that P(c) is

false.
• Statements such as x (P(x) → Q(x)) can be disproved by
simply providing a counterexample.

Statement: “All birds can fly.”

Disproved by counterexample: Penguin.
Negation

(x P(x)) is logically equivalent to x (P(x)).

(x P(x)) is logically equivalent to x (P(x)).
See Table 2 in Section 1.3.
This is de Morgan’s law for quantifiers
Negation

Examples
Not all roses are red
x (Rose(x) → Red(x))
x (Rose(x)  Red(x))

Nobody is perfect
  x (Person(x)  Perfect(x))
 x (Person(x) →  Perfect(x))
Nested Quantifier

A predicate can have more than one variables.

• S(x, y, z): z is the sum of x and y
• F(x, y): x and y are friends
We can quantify individual variables in different ways
• x, y, z (S(x, y, z) → (x <= z  y <= z))
• x y z (F(x, y)  F(x, z)  (y != z) → F(y, z)
Example
Translate the following English sentence into logical expression
“If two people love the same person, they don’t love each other”
• “Mary likes Alex” → Love(A,C)
• “Daisy likes Alex” → Love(B,C)

Love(A,C)  Love(B,C) →  Love(A,B) AND Love(B,A)

Nested Quantifier

Exercise: translate the following English sentence into logical

expression
“There is a rational number in between every pair of
distinct rational numbers”
Use predicate Q(x), which is true when x is a rational number
x,y (Q(x)  Q (y)  (x < y) →
u (Q(u)  (x < u)  (u < y)))
Summary, Sections 1.3, 1.4
• Propositional functions (predicates)
• Universal and existential quantifiers, and the duality of the two
• When predicates become propositions
• All of its variables are instantiated
• All of its variables are quantified
• Nested quantifiers
• Quantifiers with negation
• Logical expressions formed by predicates, operators, and
quantifiers
Mathematical Reasoning

We need mathematical reasoning to

• determine whether a mathematical argument is
correct or incorrect and
• construct mathematical arguments.

Mathematical reasoning is not only important for conducting proofs

and program verification, but also for artificial intelligence systems
(drawing logical inferences from knowledge and facts).

We focus on deductive proofs

Terminology

• An axiom is a basic assumption about mathematical structure that

needs no proof.
• Things known to be true (facts or proven theorems)
• Things believed to be true but cannot be proved
• We can use a proof to demonstrate that a particular statement is
true. A proof consists of a sequence of statements that form an
argument.
• The steps that connect the statements in such a sequence are the
rules of inference.
• Cases of incorrect reasoning are called fallacies.
Terminology

• A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true.

• A lemma is a simple theorem used as an intermediate result in the

proof of another theorem.

• A corollary is a proposition that follows directly from a theorem that

has been proved.

• A conjecture is a statement whose truth value is unknown. Once it is

proven, it becomes a theorem.
Proofs

• A theorem often has two parts

- Conditions (premises, hypotheses)
- Conclusion

• A correct (deductive) proof is to establish that

- If the conditions are true then the conclusion is true
- I.e., Conditions → conclusion is a tautology

• Often there are missing pieces between conditions and conclusion.

Fill it by an argument
- Using conditions and axioms
- Statements in the argument connected by proper rules of inference
Rules of Inference

Rules of inference provide the justification of the steps used in a proof.

One important rule is called modus ponens or the law of detachment.

It is based on the tautology
(p  (p → q)) → q. We write it in the following way:

p The two hypotheses p and p → q are

p→ q written in a column, and the conclusion
____
q below a bar, where  means “therefore”.
Rules of Inference

The general form of a rule of inference is:

The rule states that if p1 and p2 and … and pn
p1 are all true, then q is true as well.
p2
.
. Each rule is an established tautology of
.
pn p1  p2  …  pn  q
____
q
These rules of inference can be used in any
mathematical argument and do not
require any proof.
Rules of Inference q
p→q Modus tollens
p _____
_____ Addition p
p
p→q
Hypothetical
pq q→r
_____ _____ syllogism
Simplification
p p→r (chaining)

p pq
q p Disjunctive
_____ Conjunction
_____ syllogism
pq q (resolution)
Arguments

• Just like a rule of inference, an argument consists of one or more

hypotheses (or premises) and a conclusion.
• We say that an argument is valid, if whenever all its hypotheses are
true, its conclusion is also true.
• However, if any hypothesis is false, even a valid argument can lead to
an incorrect conclusion.

Proof: show that hypotheses → conclusion is true using rules of

inference
Arguments

Example:
“If 101 is divisible by 3, then 1012 is divisible by 9. 101 is divisible by 3.
Consequently, 1012 is divisible by 9.”

Although the argument is valid, its conclusion is incorrect, because one

of the hypotheses is false (“101 is divisible by 3.”).

If in the above argument we replace 101 with 102, we could correctly

conclude that 1022 is divisible by 9.
Arguments

Which rule of inference was used in the last argument?

p: “101 is divisible by 3.”

q: “1012 is divisible by 9.”
p
p→q
_____ Modus ponens
q

Unfortunately, one of the hypotheses (p) is false.

Therefore, the conclusion q is incorrect.
Arguments

Another example:
“If it rains today, then we will not have a barbeque today. If we do not
have a barbeque today, then we will have a barbeque tomorrow.
Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a barbeque tomorrow.”

This is a valid argument: If its hypotheses are true, then its conclusion
is also true.
Arguments

Let us formalize the previous argument:

p: “It is raining today.”
q: “We will not have a barbecue today.”
r: “We will have a barbecue tomorrow.”
So the argument is of the following form:
p→q
q→r Hypothetical syllogism
_____
p→r
Arguments

Another example:

• Gary is either intelligent or a good actor.

• If Gary is intelligent, then he can count from 1 to 10.
• Gary can only count from 1 to 3.
• Therefore, Gary is a good actor.

i: “Gary is intelligent.”
a: “Gary is a good actor.”
c: “Gary can count from 1 to 10.”
Arguments

i: “Gary is intelligent.”
a: “Gary is a good actor.”
c: “Gary can count from 1 to 10.”
Step 1: c Hypothesis
Step 2: i→ c Hypothesis
Step 3: i Modus tollens Steps 1 & 2
Step 4: ai Hypothesis
Step 5: a Disjunctive Syllogism
Steps 3 & 4
Conclusion: a (“Gary is a good actor.”)
Arguments

Yet another example:

• If you listen to me, you will pass CS107.

• You passed CS107.
• Therefore, you have listened to me.

Is this argument valid?

No, it assumes ((p → q)  q) → p.

This statement is not a tautology. It is false if p is false, and q is true.
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
x P(x) Universal
__________
 P(c) if c  U instantiation

P(c) for an arbitrary c  U Universal

___________________
  x P(x) generalization

x P(x) Existential
______________________
 P(c) for some element c  U instantiation

P(c) for some element c  U Existential

____________________
  x P(x) generalization
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

Example:

• Every YZU student is study hard.

• George is a YZU student.
• Therefore, George is study hard.

U(x): “x is a YZU student.”

G(x): “x is a study hard.”
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

The following steps are used in the argument:

Step 1: x (U(x) → G(x)) Hypothesis
Step 2: U(George) → G(George) Univ. instantiation using Step 1
Step 3: U(George) Hypothesis
Step 4: G(George) Modus ponens using Steps 2 & 3

 x P(x)
__________ Universal
 P(c) if c  U instantiation
Proving Theorems

Direct proof:
An implication p → q can be proved by showing that if p is true, then q
is also true.
Example: Give a direct proof of the theorem
“If n is odd, then n2 is odd.”
Idea: Assume that the hypothesis of this implication is true (n is odd).
Then use rules of inference and known theorems of math to show that
q must also be true (n2 is odd).
Proving Theorems

n is odd.

Then n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer.

Consequently, n2 = (2k + 1)2. ( A + B )2 = A2 + 2AB + B2

= 4k2 + 4k + 1
= 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1

Since n2 can be written in this form, it is odd.

Proving Theorems

Indirect proof:
An implication p → q is equivalent to its contra-positive q → p.
Therefore, we can prove p → q by showing that whenever q is false,
then p is also false.
Example: Give an indirect proof of the theorem
“If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd.”
Idea: Assume that the conclusion of this implication is false (n is even).
Then use rules of inference and known theorems to show that p must
also be false (3n + 2 is even).
Proving Theorems

n is even.
Then n = 2k, where k is an integer.
It follows that 3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2
= 6k + 2
= 2(3k + 1)
Therefore, 3n + 2 is even.
We have shown that the contrapositive of the implication is true, so the
implication itself is also true (If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd).
Proving Theorems

Indirect Proof is a special case of proof by contradiction

Suppose n is even (negation of the conclusion).
Then n = 2k, where k is an integer.
It follows that 3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2
= 6k + 2
= 2(3k + 1)
Therefore, 3n + 2 is even.
However, this is a contradiction since 3n + 2 is given to be odd, so the
conclusion (n is odd) holds.
Another Example on Proof

• Anyone performs well is either intelligent or a good actor.

• If someone is intelligent, then he/she can count from 1 to 10.
• Gary performs well.
• Gary can only count from 1 to 3.
• Therefore, not everyone is both intelligent and a good actor.

P(x): x performs well

I(x): x is intelligent
A(x): x is a good actor
C(x): x can count from 1 to 10
Another Example on Proof

Hypotheses:
1. Anyone performs well is either intelligent or a good actor.
x (P(x) → I(x)  A(x))
2. If someone is intelligent, then he/she can count from 1 to 10.
x (I(x) → C(x) )
3. Gary performs well.
P(G)
4. Gary can only count from 1 to 3.
C(G)
Conclusion: not everyone is both intelligent and a good actor
x(I(x)  A(x))
Another Example on Proof
Direct proof:
Step 1: x (P(x) → I(x)  A(x)) Hypothesis
Step 2: P(G) → I(G)  A(G) Univ. Inst. Step 1
Step 3: P(G) Hypothesis
Step 4: I(G)  A(G) Modus ponens Steps 2 & 3
Step 5: x (I(x) → C(x)) Hypothesis
Step 6: I(G) → C(G) Univ. inst. Step5
Step 7: C(G) Hypothesis
Step 8: I(G) Modus tollens Steps 6 & 7
Step 9: I(G)  A(G) Addition Step 8
Step 10: (I(G)  A(G)) Equivalence Step 9
Step 11: x(I(x)  A(x)) Exist. general. Step 10
Step 12: x (I(x)  A(x)) Equivalence Step 11

Conclusion: x (I(x)  A(x)), not everyone is both intelligent and a good actor.
Summary, Section 1.5
• Terminology (axiom, theorem, conjecture, argument, etc.)
• Rules of inference (Tables 1 and 2)
• Valid argument (hypotheses and conclusion)
• Construction of valid argument using rules of inference
• For each rule used, write down and the statements involved in the proof
• Direct and indirect proofs
• Other proof methods (e.g., induction, pigeon hole) will be introduced in later
chapters
Exercise 1
Without constructing a truth table, use equivalent laws. Check if the
propositional expression G is an implication of F.

a) F = P ∧ (Q ∨ R) G = (P ∧ Q) ∨ R
b) F = P → Q ∧ Q → R G=P→ Q→R
c) F = P ∧ Q G = (¬P → Q) ∨ (P → ¬Q)
Exercise 2
Without constructing a truth table, use equivalent laws. Prove that the
following propositional expressions are true.
a) P → (¬P → P)
b) P → ((Q → (P ∧ Q)))
c) ¬(P ∨ ¬Q) → ¬P
d) ((P → Q) ∧ (Q → R)) → (P → R)
Exercise 3
Without constructing a truth table, use equivalent laws. Prove the
following logical equivalences.
a) P ∨ Q ∧ ¬(¬P ∧ Q) ⇔ P
b) ¬ ¬((P ∨ Q ∧ R)) ∨ ¬Q) ⇔ Q ∧ R
c) P ∨ Q ∧ P ∨ ¬Q ∨Q ⇔ P∨Q
d) ¬ (P ∨ Q) ∨ ¬P ∧ Q ∨ ¬Q ⇔ ¬ (P ∧ Q)
e) (P → Q) ∧ (¬Q ∧ (R ∨ ¬Q)) ⇔ ¬ (Q ∨ P)
Exercise 4
Without constructing a truth table, use equivalent laws. Prove the
following logical equivalences.
a) P ∨ (P ∧ P ∨ Q ) ⇔ P
b) P ∨ Q ∨ ¬P ∧ ¬Q ∧ R ⇔ P∨Q∨R
c) ¬P ∨ ¬Q → P ∧ Q ∧ R ⇔ P∧Q
d) P ∧ ((¬Q → (R ∧ R)) ∨ ¬(Q ∨ R ∧ S ∨ R ∧ ¬S ) ⇔ P
e) (P ∨ Q ∨ R) ∧ (P ∨ S ∨ ¬Q) ∧ (P ∨ ¬S ∨ R) ⇔ P ∨ (R ∧ S ∨ ¬Q )
Exercise 5
Without constructing a truth table, use equivalent laws. Prove the following
logical equivalences.
a) (p → r) ∧ (q → r) ⇔ (p ∨ q) → r
b) p → q ∨ p → r ⇔ p → q ∨ r
c) ¬ p ∨ q ∨ ¬p ∨ q ∧ ¬q ⇔ p → q ∧ ¬q ∧ r ∨ ¬q

d) ¬ ¬ r ∨ q ∧ q ∨ ¬p ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q → p ∧ q ∧ r
e) p ∨ ((p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ ¬r)) ⇔ p ∧ ((¬q → r) ∨ ¬(q ∨ (r ∧ s) ∨ (r ∧ ¬s)))
Exercise 6
Given 2 predicates P(x) Q(x) determined as follows:
𝑃 𝑥 = 𝑥≤3
Q(x) = {x + 1 is odd}
If space is the set of integers, determine the truth values of the following
statements:
a) P(1) f) P 3 ∧ Q 4
b) Q(1) g) P 4
c) ¬P(3) h) ¬(P(−4) ∨ Q(−3))
d) Q(6) i) ¬P (−4) ∧ ¬Q (−3)
e) P 7 ∧ Q 7
Exercise 7

Given 2 predicates P(x) Q(x) determined as follows:

𝑃(𝑥) = {𝑥 ≤ 3}
Q(x) = {x + 1 is odd}
R x = x>0
a) If space is the set of integers, determine the truth values of the following
statements
• P(3) ∨ [Q(3) ∨ ¬R (3)] b) Determine all values of x such that
• ¬P (3) ∧ [Q(3) ∨ [Q(3) ∨ R(3)]] [P(x) ∧ Q(x)] ∧ R(x) is a true statement.
• P(2) → [Q(2) → R(2)]
• [P(2) ↔ Q(2)] → R(2)
c) Find the 5 smallest positive integer values of x
such that the predicate:
• P(0) → [¬Q(1) ↔ R(1)]
𝑥=2
• [P(−1) ↔ Q(−2)] ↔ R(−3)
P(x) → [¬Q(x) ∧ R(x)] is a true statement.
Exercise 7

Translate the following English sentence into logical expression:

a) No one is perfect
b) Not all of you are perfect
c) All your friends are perfect.
d) One of your friends is perfect.
e) Everyone is your friend and is perfect.
f) Not everyone is your friend or someone is not perfect.
Exercise 8

Given 𝐿(𝑥, 𝑦) : "x loves y", with the space of 𝑥 and y being the set of people in the
world. Use logical expression a to translate the following sentences:
a) Everyone loves Jerry.
b) Everyone loves someone.
c) There is a person that everyone loves.
d) No one loves everyone.
e) There is someone Lydia doesn't love.
f) There is a person that no one loves.
g) There is exactly one person that everyone loves.
h) There are exactly two people Lynn loves.
i) Everyone loves themself.
j) There is someone who loves no one but himself.
 Q&A
Questions and Answer
Thank you for your attention