02 Intro Quantifiers - Handout

01204211 Discrete Mathematics
Lecture 2: Quantifiers
Jittat Fakcharoenphol
September 21, 2015

This lecture covers:
I More connectives: implications and equivalences

I Quantifiers
Review (1)
I A proposition is a statement which is either true or false.

I We can use variables to stand for propositions, e.g., P =
“today is Tuesday”.
I We can use connectives to combine variables to get
propositional forms.
I Conjunction: P ∧ Q (“P and Q”),
I Disjunction: P ∨ Q (“P or Q”), and
I Negation: ¬P (“not P ”)
Review (2)
To represents values of propositional forms, we usually use truth

tables.
And/Or/Not
P Q P ∧Q P ∨Q ¬P
T T T T F
T F F T
F T F T T
F F F F
Quick check 1
As we said before, the truth value of propositional forms may not

depend on the values of its variables. As you can see in this
exercise.
Use a truth table to find the values of (1) P ∧ ¬P and (2) P ∨ ¬P .
And/Or/Not
P ¬P P ∧ ¬P P ∨ ¬P
T F F T
F T F T
Note that P ∧ ¬P is always false and P ∨ ¬P is always true.

A propositional form which is always true regardless of the truth
values of its variables is called a tautology. On the other hand, a
propositional form which is always false regardless of the truth
values of its variables is called a contradiction.
Implications1
Given P and Q, an implication
P ⇒Q
stands for “if P , then Q”. This is a very important propositional

form.
It states that “when P is true, Q must be true”. Let’s try to fill in
its truth table:
Implications
P Q P ⇒Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
1
Materials in this lecture are mostly from Berkeley CS70’s lecture notes.
What?
I Yes, when P is false, P ⇒ Q is always true no matter what

truth value of Q is.
I We say that in this case, the statement P ⇒ Q is vacuously
true.
I You might feel a bit uncomfortable about this, because in
most natural languages, when we say that if P , then Q we
sometimes mean something more than that in the logical
expression “P ⇒ Q.”
One explanation
I But let’s look closely at what it means when we say that:
if P is true, Q must be true.
I Note that this statement does not say anything about the case
when P is false, i.e., it only considers the case when P is true.
I Therefore, having that P ⇒ Q is true is OK with the case
that (1) Q is false when P is false, and (2) Q is true when P
is false.
I This is an example when mathematical language is “stricter”
than natural language.
Noticing if-then
We can write “if P , then Q” for P ⇒ Q, but there are other ways
to say this. E.g., we can write (1) Q if P , (2) P only if Q, or (3)
when P , then Q.
Quick check 2
For each of these statements, define propositional variables
representing each proposition inside the statement and write
the proposition form of the statement.
I If you do not have enough sleep, you will feel dizzy
during class.
I If you eat a lot and you do not have enough exercise,
you will get fat.
I You can get A from this course, only if you work fairly
hard.
Only-if
Let P be “you get A from this course.”

Let Q be “you work fairly hard.”
Let R be “You can get A from this course, only if you work fairly
hard.”
Let’s think about the truth values of R.
Only if you work fairly hard.
P Q R
T T
T F
F T
F F
Thus, R should be logically equivalent to P ⇒ Q. (We write

R ≡ P ⇒ Q in this case.)
If and only if: (⇔)
Given P and Q, we denote by
P ⇔Q
the statement “P if and only if Q.” It is logically equivalent to
(P ⇐ Q) ∧ (P ⇒ Q),
i.e., P ⇔ Q ≡ (P ⇐ Q) ∧ (P ⇒ Q).
Let’s fill in its truth table.
P Q P ⇒Q P ⇐Q P ⇔Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
An implication and its friends
When you have two propositions

I P = “I own a cell phone”, and
I Q = “I bring a cell phone to class”.
We have
I an implication P ⇒ Q ≡
“If I own a cell phone, I’ll bring it to class”,
I its converse Q ⇒ P ≡
“If I bring a cell phone to class, I own it”, and
I its contrapositive ¬Q ⇒ ¬P ≡
“If I do not bring a cell phone to class, I do not own one”.
Quick check 3
Let’s consider the following truth table:
P Q P ⇒Q Q⇒P ¬Q ⇒ ¬P
T T
T F
F T
F F
Do you notice any equivalence?

Right, P ⇒ Q ≡ ¬Q ⇒ ¬P .
How about our subgoal?
I In many cases, the statement we are interested in contains

variables.
I For example, “x is even,” “p is prime,” or “s is a student.”
I As we previously did with propositions, we can use variables to
represent these statements. E.g.,
I let E(x) ≡ “x is even”,
I let P (y) ≡ “y is prime, and
I let S(w) ≡ “w is a student.
We call E(x), P (y), and S(w) predicates. (You can think of
predicates as statements that may be true of false depending
on the values of its variables.)
Quantifiers (1)
I As we note before, these predicates are not propositions. But

if we know the values of their variables, then they becomes
propositions. For example, if we let x = 5, then E(5) is a
proposition which is false. Also, P (7) is true.
I Since the truth values of predicates depend on the
assignments of their variables, we can put quantifiers to
specify the scopes of these variables and how to interprete the
truth values of the predicates over these values.
Quantifiers (2): universal quantifiers
I Let A = {2, 4, 6, 8}.

I Note that E(2), E(4), E(6), and E(8) are true, i.e., E(x) is
true for every x ∈ A.
In this case, we say that the following proposition is true:
(∀x ∈ A)E(x).
I The quantifier ∀ is called a universal quantifier. (We usually

pronounce “for all x”, or “for every x.”)
Quantifiers (3): existential quantifiers
I Again, let A = {2, 4, 6, 8}.

I Note that P (2) is true. This means that P (y) is true for some
y ∈ A.
In this case, we say that the following proposition is true:
(∃y ∈ A)P (y).
I The quantifier ∃ is called an existential quantifier. (We

usually pronounce “for some x”, or “there exists x.”)
When the universe A is clear, we can leave it out and

just write ∀xE(x) or ∃yP (y).
The main goal
I Let’s try to be more specific about our main goal:
Algorithm CheckPrime2 is correct.
I Can we re-write this statement so that the input/output of

the algorithm are explicit?
I Note that the set of its input n is an integer. Thus, we are
interested in every n ∈ Z, where Z denote the set of all
integers.
I Let’s rewrite the goal as:
∀n ∈ Z, C(n) ⇔ P (n),
where C(n) ≡ “CheckPrime2(n) returns True”, and

P (n) ≡ “n is a prime.”
Quantified propositions with more than one variables
Let our universe be integers (Z). Which of the following
statements is true?
I ∀x∀y(x = y)
I ∀x∃y(x = y)
I ∃x∀y(x = y)
I ∃x∃y(x = y)
When you have many quantifiers, we can interprete the statement
by nesting the quantifiers. E.g,
∃x∀yP (x, y) ≡ ∃x(∀y(P (x, y))).
∀y∃xP (x, y) ≡ ∀y(∃x(P (x, y))).
Also note that usually, ∃x∀yP (x, y) 6≡ ∀y∃xP (x, y).

Quick check 4
We will consider the universe to be “everything”. Consider the

following statements. Define appropriate predicates and rewrite
them using the defined predicates and quantifiers. (Note: the
predicates may have more than one variables.)
I Every human must die.
I Some animal eats other animals.
I If a student works hard, that student will be successful.
I Everyone has someone that care about him or her.
Quick check 5
I Let’s consider the current subgoal. (Note that in this version,
variable b is replaced with n/a.)
Another revised statement
For all positive composite integer n, and for every divisor
√
a of n such that n < a < n,
√
2 ≤ n/a ≤ n.
I Define all required predicates and describe a quantified

proposition equivalent to the revised statement above.
Negations of quantified propositions (1)
Let consider a set of positive integers Z+ as our universe. Let

predicate P (x) ≡ “x is a prime number.”
Consider this proposition
(∀x ∈ Z+ )P (x).
How can we show that this is false?
When showing that a universally quantified proposition is false, we
need to show “one” counter example. In this case, since P (4) is
false, ∀xP (x) is false.
This way of disproving a statement is equivalent to showing that
(∃x)(¬P (x)).
Let consider a set of positive integers Z+ as our universe. Let

predicate Q(x) ≡ “if x > 2, then x2 ≤ 2x.”
Consider this proposition
(∃x ∈ Z+ )Q(x).
How can we show that this is false?
When showing that an existential quantified proposition is false, we
need to show that Q(x) is false for every possible values of x. In
this case, since x2 = x · x > 2 · x for every x > 2, we have that
(∃x)Q(x) is false.
This way of disproving a statement is equivalent to showing that
(∀x)(¬Q(x)).
Thus, the following equivalences:

I ¬(∀xP (x)) ≡ ∃x(¬P (x))
I ¬(∃xP (x)) ≡ ∀x(¬P (x))
Quick check 6
Consider the following statements with the quantified propositions

that you have written previously. Write down their negations in
quantified propositional forms, and then translate them back to
English sentences.
I Every human must die.
I Some animal eats other animals.
I If a student works hard, that student will be successful.
I Everyone has someone that care about him or her.

02 Intro Quantifiers - Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Intro Quantifiers - Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Intro Quantifiers - Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01204211 Discrete Mathematics

September 21, 2015

I More connectives: implications and equivalences

I A proposition is a statement which is either true or false.

To represents values of propositional forms, we usually use truth

As we said before, the truth value of propositional forms may not

Note that P ∧ ¬P is always false and P ∨ ¬P is always true.

stands for “if P , then Q”. This is a very important propositional

I Yes, when P is false, P ⇒ Q is always true no matter what

I But let’s look closely at what it means when we say that:

if P is true, Q must be true.

Let P be “you get A from this course.”

Thus, R should be logically equivalent to P ⇒ Q. (We write

the statement “P if and only if Q.” It is logically equivalent to

When you have two propositions

Let’s consider the following truth table:

Do you notice any equivalence?

I In many cases, the statement we are interested in contains

I As we note before, these predicates are not propositions. But

I Let A = {2, 4, 6, 8}.

I The quantifier ∀ is called a universal quantifier. (We usually

I Again, let A = {2, 4, 6, 8}.

(∃y ∈ A)P (y).

I The quantifier ∃ is called an existential quantifier. (We

When the universe A is clear, we can leave it out and

Algorithm CheckPrime2 is correct.

I Can we re-write this statement so that the input/output of

where C(n) ≡ “CheckPrime2(n) returns True”, and

∃x∀yP (x, y) ≡ ∃x(∀y(P (x, y))).

∀y∃xP (x, y) ≡ ∀y(∃x(P (x, y))).

Also note that usually, ∃x∀yP (x, y) 6≡ ∀y∃xP (x, y).

We will consider the universe to be “everything”. Consider the

I Define all required predicates and describe a quantified

Let consider a set of positive integers Z+ as our universe. Let

Let consider a set of positive integers Z+ as our universe. Let

Thus, the following equivalences:

Consider the following statements with the quantified propositions

You might also like