Discrete Structures

Predicates and Quantified statements II

Interpreting Multiply-Quantified Statements
A college cafeteria line has four stations: salads, main
courses, desserts, and beverages. The salad station
offers a choice of green salad or fruit salad; the main
course station offers spaghetti or fish; the dessert station
offers pie or cake; and the beverage station offers milk,
soda, or coffee. Three students, Uta, Tim, and Yuen, go
through the line and make the following choices:

Uta: green salad, spaghetti, pie, milk

Tim: fruit salad, fish, pie, cake, milk, coffee
Yuen: spaghetti, fish, pie, soda

These choices are illustrated in Figure

Interpreting Multiply-Quantified Statements

Write each of following statements informally and find its truth value.
a. ∃ an item I such that ∀ students S, S chose I .
b. ∃ a student S such that ∀ items I, S chose I .
c. ∃ a student S such that ∀ stations Z, ∃ an item I in Z such that S chose I .
d. ∀ students S and ∀ stations Z, ∃ an item I in Z such that S chose I .
Interpreting Multiply-Quantified Statements

Solution
a. There is an item that was chosen by every student. This is true;
every student chose pie.
b. There is a student who chose every available item. This is false;
no student chose all nine items.
c. There is a student who chose at least one item from every
station. This is true; both Uta and Tim chose at least one item
from every station.
d. Every student chose at least one item from every station. This is
false; Yuen did not choose a salad.
Multiple Quantified Statements Informally
a. ∀ positive numbers x, ∃ a positive number y such
that y < x
b. ∃ a positive number x such that ∀ positive numbers y
,y<x

Sol: a. Given any positive number, there is another

positive number that is smaller than the given
number

b. There is a positive number with the property that all

positive numbers are smaller than this number.
Multiple Quantified Statements formally
a. Every body likes some body
b. Some body loves every body
c. Any even integers equals twice some other integer
d. There is a program that gives the correct answer to
every question that is posed to it.
Sol: a. ∀ people x, ∃ a person y such that x likes y.
b. ∃ a person x such that ∀ people y , x loves y.
c. ∀ even integers m, ∃ integers n, n = 2m.
d. ∃ a program P such that ∀ questions it gives correct
answer.
Negations of Multiple Statements
The negation of
∀ x, ∃ y such that P(x ,y)
is logically equivalent to
∃ x such that ∀ y, ~P(x, y).

A similar sequence of reasoning can be used to

derive the following:

The negation of
∃ x such that ∀ y, Q(x, y).
is logically equivalent to
∀ x, ∃ y such that ~Q(x ,y).
Examples
a) ∀ integers n, ∃ an integer k such that n = 2k.

b) ∃ a person x such that ∀ people y, x loves y.

Sol: a. ∃ an integer n such that ∀ integers k,n 2k

Or we can say
“ there is a some integer that is not even”
b. ∀ people x, ∃ a person y such that x does not love y.
Or we can say
“ Nobody Loves everybody”
Nested Quantifiers
Two quantifiers are nested if one is within the scope of
the other, such as ∀ x ∃ y such that (x + y = 0).
Note that everything within the scope of a quantifier
can be thought of as a propositional function.
For example, ∀ x ∃ y such that (x + y = 0), is the same
thing as ∀ x, Q(x), where Q(x) is ∃ y P(x, y), where
P(x, y) is x + y = 0. Nested quantifiers commonly occur
in mathematics and computer science.
To understand these statements involving many
quantifiers, we need to unravel what the quantifiers
and predicates that appear mean.
Example
Translate into English the statement
∀ x ∀ y {(x > 0) ∧ (y < 0) → (x·y < 0)},
where the domain for both variables consists of all real
numbers.
Solution: This statement says that for every real number x
and for every real number y, if x > 0 and y < 0, then x·y < 0.
That is, this statement says that for real numbers x and y.
This can be stated more succinctly as
"The product of a positive real number and a negative real
number is always a negative real number”.
Cont….
Write the following statements in English, using the
predicate S(x, y): “x shops in y”, where x represents
people and y represents stores:
(a) ∀ y S(john, y).
(b) ∃ x∀ y S(x, y).
Sol: (a) The predicate states that if y is a store, then
john shops there. i.e.,
“john shops in every store.”
(b) The predicate states that there is a person x with the
property that x shops in every store y. That is,
“There is a person who shops in every store.”
Table for the Quantification of two variables
Example
Write the following statement in English, using the
predicates
C(x): “x is a Computer Science major”
T (x, y): “x is taking y”
where x represents students and y represents courses:
∀y ∃x (~C(x) ∧ T (x, y)).
Solution:
The statement ∀y ∃x (~C(x) ∧ T (x, y)) says that for
every course y there is a student x such that x is not a
Computer Science major and x is taking y. That is,
“In every course there is a student who is not a
Computer Science major.”
Relations among ∀ ∃,∧, and ∨
If Q(x) is a predicate and the domain D of x is the set
{x1 , x2 ,..., xn } then the statements

x  D, Q( x)
and
Q( x1 )  Q( x2 )  ...  Q( xn )

are logically equivalent.

Example
Let Q(x) be “ x ˄ x = x” and suppose D ={ 0,1} the ∀ x
belongs to D, Q(x), can be written as ∀ binary digits x,
x˄x=x. This is equivalent to 0˄0=0 and 1˄1=1.
Example
If Q(x) is a predicate and the domain D of x is the set
{x1 , x2 ,..., xn } then the statements
x  D, Q( x)
and
Q( x1 )  Q( x2 )  ...  Q( xn )
are logically equivalent.
Example
Let Q(x) be “ x ˅ x = x” and suppose D ={ 0,1} the x
belongs to D, Q(x), can be written as ∀ binary digits x,
x ˅ x = x.
This is equivalent to 0 ˅ 0 = 0 and 1 ˅ 1=1.
 Rule of Instantiation
The rule says:
“if some property is true of everything in a domain, then
it is true of any particular thing in the domain”

Example
All human beings are mortal,
Socrates is human being,
 Socrates is mortal.
Cont….
Suppose you are doing a problem that requires you to
k 1
simplify r .r , where r is a particular real number and
k is a particular integer. For basic algebra we know that
m n m n
1. x  R , m , n  Z , x  x  x
1
2. x  R , x  x.
So we proceed as fallows
r k 1 r r k 1 r1 (by 1).
r k  2 (by 2).
Both argument 1 and 2 are examples of universal
instantiation.
 Universal Modus Ponens
The rule of universal instantiation can be combined with
modus ponens to obtain the rule of universal Modus
Ponens.

Formal Version Informal Version

∀ x, P(x) → Q(x), If x makes P(x) true,

P(a), (for a particular a) then x makes Q(x) true,
 Q(a). a makes P(x) true,
 a makes Q(x) true.
 Example
If a number is even, then its square is even.
K is a particular number that is even.
 square of k is even.
Solutions: Let E(x) = x is even, S(x) = square of x is
even. Let k stand for a particular number that is even.
Then the argument is of the form
∀ x, E(x) → S(x)
E(k), for particular k.
 S(k).
This form of argument is valid by universal modus
ponens.
 Universal Modus Tollens
The rule of universal instantiation can be combined with
modus ponens to obtain the rule of universal Modus
Ponens.

Formal Version Informal Version

∀ x, P(x) → Q(x). If x makes P(x) true,

~Q(a) for a particular a. then x makes Q(x) true.
 ~P(a) a does not makes Q(x) true.
 a does not makes P(x) true
Example
All human beings are mortal,
Zeus is human being,
 Zeus is mortal.

Sol: Let H(x) = “ x is human”, M(x) = “ x is mortal”, and

let Z stands for Zeus. The argument becomes
∀ x , if H(x) then M(x)
~M(Z)
 ~H(z).
This is valid by universal modus Tollens.
 Converse Error (Quantified Form)
The following argument form is invalid

Formal Version Informal Version

∀ x, if P(x) then Q(x), If x makes P(x) true

Q(a), for a particular a, then x makes Q(x)true,
 P(a). a makes Q(x) true,
 a makes P(x) true.
Example
All healthy people eat an apple a day
Alan eats an apple a day
 Alan is a healthy person

Sol: Let M(x) = “ x is healthy people”, H(x) = “ x eat apple a

day”, and let A stands for Alan. The argument becomes
∀ x, if M(x) then H(x)
H(A)
 M(z).
 Inverse Error (Quantified Form)
The following form argument form is invalid:

Formal Version Informal Version

∀ x, if P(x) then Q(x). If x makes P(x) true,

~P(a), for a particular a, then x makes Q(x)true.
 ~Q(a) a does not makes P(x) true.
 a does not makes Q(x) true
Example
All healthy people eat an apple a day,
Smith is not a healthy person,
 Smith does not eat apple a day.
Sol: Let H(x) = “ x is healthy people”, M(x) = “ x eat
apple a day”, and let S stands for Smith. The
argument becomes
∀ x , if H(x) then M(x),
~H(S),
 ~M(S).