Homework 1b

Nguyễn Võ Đức Sơn - 2312974 - L02

Section 1.4
Exercise 9
a. ∃x(P (x) ∧ Q(x))
b. ∃x(P (x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
c. ∀x(P (x) ∨ Q(x))
d. ∀x(¬P (x) ∧ ¬Q(x))

Exercise 10
a. ∃x(C(x) ∧ D(x) ∧ F (x))
b. ∀x(C(x) ∨ D(x) ∨ F (x))
c. ∃x(C(x) ∧ ¬D(x) ∧ F (x))
d. ∀x(¬C(x) ∧ ¬D(x) ∧ ¬F (x)) or ¬∃x(C(x) ∧ D(x) ∧ F (x))
e. As there is always one student who has one of three animals as a pet, the
expression can be written as below:
(∃xC(x)) ∧ (∃yD(y)) ∧ (∃zF (z))
Because the owner of the pets can be different, we use different variables for
each of the statement.

Exercise 33
a. Let the domain be old dogs and call T(x):"x can learn new tricks", the
original statement with quantifiers is: ∃xT (x). Its negation is ∀x¬T (x), which
is: "No old dogs can learn new tricks".
b. Let the domain be rabbits and call C(x):"x knows calculus", the statement

1
with quantifiers is: ∀x¬C(x). Its negation is ∃xC(x), which is "There is a
rabbit that knows calculus".
c. Let the domain be birds and call F(x):"x can fly", the statement with
quantifiers is: ∀xF (x). Its negation is ∃x¬F (x), which is "There is a bird
that can not fly".
d. Let the domain be dogs and call T(x):"x can talk", the statement with
quantifiers is: ∀x¬T (x). Its negation is ∃xT (x), which is "There is a dog that
can talk".
e. Let the domain be everyone in this class and call F(x):"x knows French"
and R(x):"x knows Russian", the statement with quantifiers is: ∀x(¬F (x) ∧
¬R(x)). Its negation is ∃x(F (x) ∧ R(x)), which is "There is someone in this
class who knows French and Russian".

Exercise 34
a. Let P(x) be the predicate: "x obeys the speed limit", and let the domain
be all drivers. The negation is: ∀xP (x), which is: "All drivers obey the speed
limit".
b. Let P(x) be the predicate: "x is serious", and let the domain be all Swedish
movies. The negation is: ∃x¬P (x), which is: "There is a Swedish movie that
is not serious".
c. Let P(x) be the predicate: "x can keep a secret", and let the domain be
everyone. The negation is: ∃xP (x), which is: "There is someone who can keep
a secret".
d. Let P(x) be the predicate: "x has a good attitude", and let the domain be
everyone in this class. The negation is: ∀xP (x), which is: "Everyone in this
class has a good attitude".

Exercise 39
a. If there is a printer that is both out of service and busy, then there is a
print job that is lost.
b. If all printers are busy, then there is a print job that is queued.
c. If there is a print job that is both queued and lost, then there is a printer
that is out of service.
d. If all printers are busy and all print jobs are queued, then there is a print
job that is lost.

2
Exercise 44
∀x(P (x) ↔ Q(x)) and ∀xP (x) ↔ ∀xQ(x) are not logically equivalent, as
there is an x making one true and the other false. For example, let P(x) be:
"x is an even number" and Q(x) be: "x is a multiple of 3". Suppose that x
is 4, ∀x(P (x) ↔ Q(x)) is false (as P(x) is true and Q(x) is false). However,
∀xP (x) ↔ ∀xQ(x) is true, as P(x) is false since there are a lot of numbers
that are not even numbers but odd numbers (such as 3, 5, 7,...), and Q(x) is
false because there are a lot of number that are not multiples of 3 (such as 5,
7, 8,...). As they have different truth value in this case, they are not logically
equivalent.

Exercise 45
- If ∃x(P (x) ∨ Q(x)) is true, then there is a case of x that makes P(x) or Q(x)
or both true. Because of that, ∃xP (x) or ∃xQ(x) or both are true. Therefore
both are true.
- If ∃x(P (x) ∨ Q(x)) is false, then there is no case of x that makes P(x) or
Q(x) true, hence ∃xP (x) or ∃xQ(x) are both false. Therefore both are false.
From two cases above, we can conclude that ∃x(P (x) ∨ Q(x)) and ∃xP (x) ∨
∃xQ(x) are logically equivalent.

Exercise 46
a. There are two cases:
- If A is true, then (∀xP (x)) ∨ A is always true, and also ∀x(P (x) ∨ A) is
always true, so both sides of logical equivalences are true.
- If A is false, then there are two cases with ∀xP (x). If ∀xP (x) is true,
(∀xP (x)) ∨ A is true, and since P (x) is always true, ∀x(P (x) ∨ A) is true,
so both sides of logical equivalences are true. If ∀xP (x) is false (there are
some cases of x that make P(x) false), (∀xP (x)) ∨ A is false, and since P (x)
is always false, ∀x(P (x) ∨ A) is false, so both sides of logical equivalences are
false.
b. There are two cases:
- If A is true, then (∃xP (x)) ∨ A is always true, and also ∃x(P (x) ∨ A) is
always true, so both sides of logical equivalences are true.
- If A is false, then there are two cases with ∃xP (x). If there is a case of
x that P(x) is true, then ∃xP (x) is true, so (∃xP (x)) ∨ A is true, and the

3
right-hand side is also true (since P (x) ∨ A is true for that x). So both sides
of logical equivalences are true. If there is no case of x that P(x) is true, then
∃xP (x) is false, and the left-hand side is false. Also, as there is no case of
x that P(x) is true, the right-hand side is also false. So both sides of logical
equivalences are false

Exercise 47
a. There are two cases:
- If A is false, the left-hand side is false whatever value of x is, and the right-
hand side is also false, as there is no value of x that makes P (x) ∧ A true. So
both sides of logical equivalences are false.
- If A is true, then there are two cases with ∀xP (x). If P(x) is true for every
x, ∀xP (x) is true, so the left-hand side is true, and also the right-hand side
is true (as P (x) ∧ A is true for every x). So both sides of logical equivalences
are true If there is one case of x that P(x) is false, ∀xP (x) is false, so the
left-hand side is false, and also the right-hand side is false. So both sides of
logical equivalences are false.
b. There are two cases:
- If A is false, the left-hand side is false whatever value of x is, and the right-
hand side is also false, as there is no value of x that makes P (x) ∧ A true. So
both sides of logical equivalences are false.
- If A is true, then there are two cases with ∃xP (x). If there is one case of
x that P(x) is true, ∃xP (x) is true, so the left-hand side is true, and also
the right-hand side is true (as P (x) ∧ A is true for that x). So both sides of
logical equivalences are true. If there is no case of x that P(x) is true, ∃xP (x)
is false, so the left-hand side is false, and also the right-hand side is false. So
both sides of logical equivalences are false.

Exercise 61
a. ∀x(P (x) → ¬Q(x)).
b. ∀x(R(x) → ¬S(x)).
c. ∀x(¬Q(x) → S(x)).
d. ∀x(P (x) → ¬R(x)).
e. Yes, (d) follows from (a), (b), and (c). Suppose that x is a baby, then by
the first premise, x is illogical, and by the third premise, x is despised, then

4
by the second premise, x can not manage a crocodile. Thus we have proved
that babies can not manage crocodiles.

Exercise 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)).
e. Yes, (d) follow from (a), (b), and (c). Suppose that x is one of my poultry,
then he is a duck by premise (c), hence he is not willing to waltz by premise
(a). Since officers are always willing to waltz by premise (b), my poultry is
not a officer.

Section 1.5
Exercise 17
a.
The statement can be expressed as: "For every user x, x has exactly one
mailbox." Introducing the universal quantifier, we see that this statement is
the same as "∀x(x has exactly one mailbox.)", where the domain consists of
all users.
To say that x has exactly one mailbox means that there is a y mailbox that
is the mailbox of x, and for every mailbox z, if mailbox z is not mailbox y,
then z is not the mailbox of x. Hence if we introduce the predicate M(x,y):"y
is the mailbox of x", the statement that x has exactly one mailbox can be
represented as:
∃y(M (x, y) ∧ ∀z((y ̸= z) → ¬M (x, z)). Consequently, our original statement
can be represented as:
∀x∃y(M (x, y) ∧ ∀z((y ̸= z) → ¬M (x, z)).
b.
∃p∀e(H(e) →S(p, running) →S(kernel, working correctly)), with the domain
of p is all processes, the domain of e is all error conditions, H(e) is "Error
condition e is in effect" and S(x,y):"The status of x is y". Since "only if" is
the converse of "if", the statement "the kernel is working correctly" is the
conclusion.

5
c.
∀x∀y(S(y, .edu) → A(x, y)
With the domain of x is all users on the campus network, the domain of y
is all websites, and the statement S(y, v):"The website y has a v extension",
the statement A(x, y):"User x can access website y."
d.
We will assume that the specification is that there exist two distinct systems
such that they monitor every remote server, and no other system has the
property of monitoring every remote system. Our answer is:
∃x∃y(x ̸= y ∧ ∀z((∀sM (z, s) ↔ (z = x ∨ z = y)))
With the domain of x, y, z is all systems, the domain of s is all remote servers,
and M(a, b):"System a monitors remote server b". This answer states that
there exist two systems x and y (x and y must be different) that for all
systems z that monitor all remote servers s, z must be system x or y.

Exercise 18
a. ∀y(Q(y) → ∃xP (x)).
With the domain of x is all consoles, the domain of y is all fault conditions,
P(u):"Console u is accessible" and Q(v):"Fault condition v is happening".
b. (∀u∃m(A(m) ∧ S(u, m))) → ∀uR(u). With the domain of u is every user,
domain of m is all messages, and A(x):"The archive contains message x",
S(y, z):"User y sent message z" and R(x):"The e-mail address of user x can
be retrieved".
c. ∀x∃yP (y, x) ↔ ∃z¬Q(z) With the domain of x is all security breaches, y
is all mechanisms, z is all processes. P(y, x):"Mechanism y can detect breach
x", Q(z):"Process z has been compromised"
d. ∀x∀y((x ̸= y) → ∃z∃t(C(z, x, y) ∧ C(t, x, y))) With the domain of x and
y is all endpoints, the domain of z and t is all paths, C(a, b, c):"Path a
connects endpoint b with endpoint c"
e. ∀x(∀yK(x, y) ↔ x = system administrator)
With the domain of x is all people, y is all users, K(x,y):"Person x knows
user y’s password".

Exercise 34
The logical expression is saying that whenever you have two unequal objects,
any object has to be one of these two. Therefore, any domain having one

6
or two members make it true. For example, the domain 1 makes the logical
expression always true, as the hypothesis (x ̸= y) is false. Or the domain 2,
3 makes the logical expression always true, as both the hypothesis (x ̸= y)
and conclusion (∀z((z = x) ∨ (z = y)) are true. However, any domain having
more than two members make it false, such as the domain 1, 2, 3, as the
hypothesis is true but the conclusion is false.

Exercise 35
If the domain of this logical expression has less than four members, if we
assign all the members to x, y, z (repeat them if necessary), there is nothing
left to assign to w to make the statement true, thus the logical express will
be false. For example, with the domain containing three numbers 1, 2, 3,
because of the universal quantifier, x, y, z take these three numbers in all
cases, then the statement ((w ̸= x) ∧ (w ̸= y) ∧ (w ̸= z)) is false, as there are
always two statement that are false in all cases. It is the same for the domain
containing two members and one member.
If the domain of this logical expression has more than three members, the
statement is true, as if we assign three members to x, y, z, there will always
one or more member of the domain that is different than those three that
we can assign to w. For example, the domain 1, 2, 3, 4 is true for this logical
expression, as whatever three numbers we assign to x, y, z, there is one
number left to assign to w.

Exercise 36
a. Call L(x, y):"x has lost y dollar playing the lottery".
=> ¬∃x∃y(y > 1000 ∧ L(x, y)). And the negation of the statement is:
∃x∃y(y > 1000 ∧ L(x, y)), which means: "Someone has lost more than 1000
dollar playing the lottery".
b. Call C(x, y):"Student x has chatted with y".
=> ∃x∃y(y ̸= x ∧ ∀z(z ̸= x → (z = y ↔ ¬C(x, z)))). The negation is:
∀x∀y(y ̸= x → ∃z(z ̸= x ∧ ¬(z = y ↔ C(x, z)))), which means "Everybody
in this class has either chatted with no one else or has chatted with two or
more others.
c. Call E(x, y):"Student x has sent e-mail to student y".
=> ¬∃x∃y∃z(x ̸= y ∧ y ̸= z ∧ x ̸= z ∧ ∀w(w ̸= x → (C(x, w) ↔ ((w =
y) ∨ (w = z)))). The negation is ∃x∃y∃z(x ̸= y ∧ y ̸= z ∧ x ̸= z ∧ ∀w(w ̸=

7
x → (C(x, w) ↔ ((w = y) ∨ (w = z)))), which means "There is a student in
this class who has sent e-mail to exactly two other students in this class."
d. Call S(x, y):"Student x has solved exercise y in this book."
=> ∃x∀yS(x, y). The negation is ∀x∃y¬S(x, y), which means "For every stu-
dent in this class, there are some exercises in this book that they has not
solved."
e. Call S(x, y):"Student x has solved exercise y" and B(y, z):"Exercise y is
in section z".
=> ¬∃x∀z∃y(S(x, y) ∧ B(y, z)). The negation is ∃x∀z∃y(S(x, y) ∧ B(y, z)),
which means "Some student has solved at least one exercise in every section
of this book."

Exercise 37
a. Call T(x, y):"x has taken y", with the domain of x is all students in this
class, and y is all mathematics classes at school.
The statements using quantifiers can be expressed as below:
∀x∃y∃z(y ̸= z ∧ T (x, y) ∧ T (x, z) ∧ ∀t(T (x, t) → ((t = x) ∨ (t = y))))
y and z are the two mathematics classes that x has taken, and t implies that
if x has taken any mathematics class t, t is one of these too.
The negation is:
∃x∀y∀z(y = z ∨ ¬T (x, y) ∨ ¬T (x, z) ∨ ∃t(T (x, t) ∧ (t ̸= y) ∧ (t ̸= z))), which
means "There is someone in this class for whom no matter which two distinct
mathematics classes he or she considers, these are not the two and only two
mathematics classes this person has taken."
b. Call V(x, y):"x has visited y", with the domain of x is everyone, and y is
all countries in the world.
The statements using quantifiers can be expressed as below:
∃x∀y(V (x, y) ↔ x ̸= Libya)
The negation is:
∀x∃y(V (x, y) ↔ x = Libya), which is:"For every people, there is a country
such that either that country is Libya and the person has visited it, or that
country is not Libya and the person has not visited it"
c. Call C(x, y):"x has climbed y", with the domain of x is everyone, y is all the
mountains in Himalayas. The statements using quantifiers can be expressed
as below:
¬∃x∀yC(x, y)
The negation is: ∃x∀yC(x, y)

8
Which is:"Someone has climbed every mountain in Himalayas".
d. Call M(x, y, z):"x has been in the movie z with y", with the domains of
x and y are movie actors, and z is movies. The statements using quantifiers
can be expressed as below:
∀x(∃zM(x, Kevin Bacon, z) ∨(∃y∃z1∃z2(M(x, y, z1) ∧ M(y, Kevin Bacon,
z2))))
The negation is: ∃x(∀z¬ M(x, Kevin Bacon, z) ∧(∀y∀z1∀z2 (¬M(x, y, z1)
∨¬ M(y, Kevin Bacon, z2)))), which is "There is someone who has neither
been in a movie with Kevin Bacon nor been in a movie with someone who
has been in a movie with Kevin Bacon."

Exercise 47
According to De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers, we have:
¬∃x∀yP (x, y) ≡ ∀x¬∀yP (x, y) ≡ ∀x∃y¬P (x, y)
So the two statements are logically equivalent.

Exercise 48
Suppose that ∀xP (x)∨∀xQ(x) is true, it means that either P(x) is universally
true, or Q(x) is universally true. If P(x) is universally true, ∀x∀y(P (x) ∨
Q(y)) is true, no matter what x and y are, as a disjunction is true when
one expression is true, and P(x) is true for all x. If Q(x) is universally true,
∀x∀y(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true, no matter what x and y are, as a disjunction is
true when one expression is true, and Q(x) is true for all x, which is also
Q(y) is true for all y.
Suppose that ∀x∀y(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true, if ∀xP (x) is true, ∀xP (x) ∨ ∀xQ(x)
is true, hence two statements are logically equivalent. If ∀xP (x) is false, P(x)
must be false for some cases x0 in the domain. The hypothesis tells us that
(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true for all x and y, but there are some cases x0 that P(x0)
is false, so in order to P (x0) ∨ Q(y) is true for all x and y, Q(y) must be true
for all y, hence ∀xQ(x) is true, which implies that ∀xP (x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) is true.
So both statements are logically equivalent.

Exercise 49
a. Suppose that ∀xP (x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) is true, it means that P(x) is true for all x
in the domain, and also there are some objects of x, call it y, in the domain

9
that makes Q true. For ∀x∃y(P (x) ∧ Q(y)), suppose that x is any object in
the domain. As we prove above, P(x) is true, also, Q(y) is true for particular
y in the domain. Therefore P (x) ∧ Q(y) is true. Conservely, suppose that
∀x∃y(P (x) ∧ Q(y)) is true, it means that both P(x) and Q(y) is true, which
means that for any member of the domain x, there exists an y such that
P (x) ∧ Q(y) is true. Thus by the definition of existential quantifiers, ∃xQ(x)
is true. Also, in the hypothesis, ∀xP (x) is true. Therefore ∀xP (x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)
is true. Hence two statements are logically equivalence.
b. Suppose that ∀xP (x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true. If P(x) is always true with any
given value x, P (x) ∨ Q(y) is true for all x, hence ∀x∃y(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.
If Q(x) is true, there are some particular cases, called y that make Q true,
which means P (x) ∨ Q(y) is true whatever x is. So ∀x∃y(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.
Conversely, suppose that ∀x∃y(P (x) ∨ Q(y)) is true, if P(x) is true for all x,
then ∀xP (x) is true, hence ∀xP (x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true. If P(x) is false, there
must be a y such that Q(y) is true because of the hypothesis, which means
that ∃yQ(y) or also ∃xQ(x) is true, hence ∀xP (x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) is true. So two
statements are logically equivalence.

Section 1.6
Exercise 11
Suppose that the argument form with premises p1 , p2 , ..., pn and q and con-
clusion r is valid, it means that when p1 , p2 , ..., pn and q are true, r is true. So
suppose that p1 , p2 , ..., pn is true, if q is false, then q → r is true, hence the
argument is valid. If q is true, by the validity of the given argument form, r
is also true, so the argument is valid.

Exercise 12
From Exercise 11, we know that we should prove the argument form with
premises (p ∧ t) → (r ∨ s), q → (u ∨ t), u → p, ¬s, q and conclusion r is
valid. Using Modulus ponens, from q and q → (u ∧ t) we get (u ∧ t). From
there we get both u and t by simplification and the commutative law. From
u and u → p we get p by Modulus ponens, and from p and t we got p ∧ t
by conjunction. From p ∧ t and (p ∧ t) → (r ∨ s) we get r ∨ s by Modulus
ponens, and from that and ¬s we get r by Disjunctive syllogism.

10
Exercise 23
The error occurs in step (5), because we cannot assume that the c that makes
P true is the same as the c that makes Q true.

Exercise 24
The error occurs in step (3) and (5), as Simplification applies to conjunction,
not disjunction.

Exercise 34
Call p: "Logic is difficult", q: "Many students like logic" and r: "Mathematics
is easy".
We transform two assumptions into compound propositions using logical con-
nectives and propositional variables:
1. p ∨ ¬q. We know that this is logically equivalent to ¬p → ¬q.
2. r → ¬p.
Using Hypothetical syllogism for the two premises above, we have the con-
clusion: r → ¬q, which is logically equivalent to q → ¬r.
a. This is the same as q → ¬r, so this is a valid conclusion.
b. This can be written as ¬r → ¬q or q → r. This conditional statement is
false when q is true and r is false. However, when q is true, r is false, and we
take p as true as well, both of our assumptions are true, hence the conclusion
is true, which is different from the statement above. So this conclusion is not
valid.
c. This can be written as ¬r ∨ p or r → p, which does not follow from our
assumptions, as when we take r to be true, p to be false, q to be false, the
statement above is false while both of our assumptions are true. So this con-
clusion is not valid.
d. This can be written as ¬p ∨ ¬r, or p → ¬r, which is logically equivalent to
the second assumption r → ¬p. Hence this validly follows from our assump-
tions.
e. This can be written as ¬q → (¬r ∨ ¬p) or ¬q → (r → ¬p). The only
case that this statement is false is when q is false and both r and p are true,
but this makes the second assumption r → ¬p false also, so in all cases in
which the assumptions hold, this statement holds as well, so this is a valid
conclusion.

11
Exercise 35

12