DISCRETE STRUCTURES AND THEORY OF LOGIC (BCS 303)

Lecture - 8
Quantifiers with Restricted Domain
We can limit the domain of the quantifier by modifying the notation a bit.
Example 1: ∀x < 0 (x2 > 0)
Domain: Real Numbers
Meaning of the above statement: "The square of any negative real number is positive."
This notation expresses that for all x, where x < 0, the square of x is greater than 0.
Example 2: ∃y > 0 (y2 = 2)
Domain: Real Numbers
Meaning of the above statement: "There exists a positive square root of 2."
This means that there exists a positive y such that y2 = 2. This is equivalent to stating that
y = √2, which is true.

Translation into Logical Form:

Example 1: ∀x < 0 (x2 > 0) ⇒ ∀x (x < 0 → x2 > 0)
Translation: for all x in the domain of real numbers, if x is less than zero, then x2 > 0.
Example 2: ∃y > 0 (y2 = 2) ⇒ ∃y (y > 0 ∧ y2 = 2)
Translation: "There exists a y in the domain of real numbers such that y is greater than
zero and y2 = 2."

Practice Problem:
Q1. What is the truth value of ∀x < 0 (x2 = 1) where the domain consists of all real numbers?
Q2. What is the truth value of the following statements if the domain consists of all integers?
a) ∃x ≠ 2 (x2 = 4)
b) ∃x (x < 0 → x2 - 2 > 1)

Solutions:
1. ∀x < 0 (x2 = 1)
This statement reads: "For all real numbers x, where x < 0, x2 = 1."
Domain: all real numbers.
➢ The quantifier ∀x < 0 restricts x to negative real numbers.
➢ Now, for each x < 0, we are asked if x2 =1.
The square of any negative number x < 0 is always positive.
However, only for x = −1, it holds that x2 = 1.
For any other negative real number (like x = −2, x = −0.5, etc.), x2 ≠ 1.
Conclusion:
Since the statement must hold for all negative x, and it only holds for x = −1, the statement
is false.

2. a) ∃x ≠ 2 (x² = 4)
Statement: ∃x ≠ 2 (x2 = 4)
This reads: "There exists an integer x that is not equal to 2, such that x2 = 4."
Domain: all integers.
➢ We are looking for an integer x such that x2 = 4, but x must not be equal to 2.
➢ Solving x2 = 4, we find that x = 2 and x = −2.
However, the statement specifies that x ≠ 2, so we focus on the other solution: x = −2.
Conclusion:
Since x = −2 satisfies x2 = 4 and x ≠ 2, the statement is true.

b) ∃x (x < 0 → x² - 2 > 1)
Statement: ∃x (x<0 → x2−2>1)
This reads: "There exists an integer x such that if x < 0, then x² - 2 > 1."
➢ We are looking for an integer x such that the implication x < 0 → x² - 2 > 1 holds.
➢ The implication p → q is false only if p is true and q is false. Otherwise, the implication
holds.
Let’s break it down:
• If x < 0, then we want to check whether x² - 2 > 1.
▪ For x = −1, x2 – 2 = 1 – 2 = −1, which is not greater than 1. Thus, x = −1 does
not satisfy the condition.
▪ For x = −2, x2 – 2 = 4 – 2 =2, which is greater than 1. So, x = −2 satisfies the
condition.
• Since x ≥ 0, the condition that x < 0 can never be true, so the whole statement is
automatically true, even though the second part doesn’t matter.
Conclusion:
Since x = −2 satisfies the condition, the statement is true.
Logical Equivalences Involving Predicates and Quantifiers
Definition: Two logical statements involving predicates and quantifiers are said to be
equivalent if and only if they have the same truth value in all the possible
cases.
Logical equivalence is helpful in replacing one expression with an equivalent expression.
There are two important equivalences involving quantifiers:
∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) ≡ ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x)
∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≡ ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x)
Note: we can also use ⇔ symbol instead of ≡ symbol.

➢ Why ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) ≡ ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x)?

Proof: Let us consider one example
Domain: All students of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
Q(x): x has scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)): Every student in XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics and has
scored more than 60% marks in exams.
∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x): Every student in XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics and
every student in XYZ University has scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
First, we prove:
∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) → ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x)
Note: When ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) is True, then ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) can never be false.
So, assume that ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) is true,
Then we will see if ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) is true or not.

Thus, ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) → ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) is True.

Now we prove:
∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) → ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x))
Assume that ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) is true,
Then we will see if ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) is true or not.
Thus, ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) → ∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) is true.

➢ What happens if we change ^ by v?

∀x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≡ ∀x P(x) v ∀x Q(x)
Proof:
Domain: All students of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
Q(x): x has scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
∀x (P(x) v Q(x)): Every student in XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics or has
scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
∀x P(x) v ∀x Q(x): Every student in XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics or every
student in the XYZ university has scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
First, we prove:
∀x (P(x) v Q(x)) → ∀x P(x) v ∀x Q(x)

Thus, ∀x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≠ ∀x P(x) v ∀x Q(x)

Because if any of the implications is not TRUE then the equivalence is not satisfied.
Conclusion:
∀x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) ≡ ∀x P(x) ^ ∀x Q(x) -----> TRUE
∀x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≡ ∀x P(x) v ∀x Q(x) ------> FALSE
➢ Why ∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≡ ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x)?
Proof:
Domain: All students of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
Q(x): x has scored more than 60% marks in the exam.
∃x (P(x) v Q(x)): Some students of XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics or has
scored more than 60% marks.
∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x): Some students of XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics or
some students of XYZ University has scored more than 60% marks.
First we consider
∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) → ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x)

Thus, ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x) can never be FALSE,

If ∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) is True.
Now let's take the other side,
∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x) →∃x (P(x) v Q(x))

Thus, ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x) →∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) is TRUE.

➢ What happens if we change v by ^?
∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) ≡ ∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x)?
Proof:
Domain: All students of XYZ University.
P(x): x has studied discrete mathematics.
Q(x): x has scored more than 60% marks.
∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)): Some students of XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics and has
scored more than 60% marks.
∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x): Some students of XYZ University has studied discrete mathematics and
some students of XYZ University has scored more than 60% marks.
Lets take an example to prove it:
First we prove, ∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) → ∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x)

Thus, ∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) → ∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x) is TRUE.

Now we take the other side:
∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x) → ∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x))

Because at least one student who has studied discrete mathematics and has scored more
than 60% marks in exam.
So, there is no student who has studied discrete mathematics and has scored more than
60% marks in exam.
Thus, it is clear that when ∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x) is TRUE, then ∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) need not to be true.
Hence, the other side of implication does not satisfy, which means they are not equivalent.
Conclusion:
∃x (P(x) ^ Q(x)) ≡ ∃x P(x) ^ ∃x Q(x) ------> FALSE
∃x (P(x) v Q(x)) ≡ ∃x P(x) v ∃x Q(x) -------> TRUE
Example: Determine whether ∀x(P(x)→Q(x)) and ∀xP(x)→∀xQ(x) are logically equivalent.
Justify your answer.
The Two Expressions:
1. ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)):
✓ This says, "For every x, if P(x) is true, then Q(x) must be true."
✓ It looks at each individual case (for every x) and checks whether P(x) leads to
Q(x).
2. ∀xP(x) → ∀xQ(x):
✓ This says, "If P(x) is true for every x, then Q(x) must be true for every x."
✓ Here, we are not looking at individual cases but rather at whether P(x) is true
for all x, and if that’s the case, then Q(x) should also be true for all x.

Proof using formal logic (contrapositive and expansion):

We can express both statements in more detail using logical rules.
1. ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)):
✓ This says: "For every x, if P(x) is true, then Q(x) is true."
✓ In logical terms: This is saying that the implication P(x) → Q(x) holds for every
value of x. We can also rewrite this implication using the contrapositive:
▪ ∀x (¬P(x) ∨ Q(x))
✓ Meaning: Either P(x) is false or Q(x) is true for every x.
2. ∀x P(x) → ∀x Q(x):
✓ This says: "If P(x) is true for every x, then Q(x) is true for every x."
✓ In logical terms: This can be rewritten as an implication between two universal
quantifiers:
▪ (∀x P(x)) → (∀x Q(x))
✓ Meaning: If P(x) is true for every x, then Q(x) must be true for every x.

To prove these are not equivalent, consider the following:

Proof by counterexample:
We can show non-equivalence by finding a situation where one statement is true and the
other is false. Consider the following example:
• Let’s assume:

• P(x): "x is an even number."

• Q(x): "x is greater than 10."
Now check both expressions:
1. ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)):
 ✓ This says: "For every x, if x is an even number, then x is greater than 10."
✓ This statement is false because there are even numbers (like 2, 4, 6) that are
not greater than 10, so the implication fails for those values of x.
2. ∀x P(x) → ∀x Q(x):
✓ This says: "If every x is an even number, then every x is greater than 10."
✓ This statement is true, because the first part (∀x P(x), "every x is an even
number") is false (not every x is an even number).
✓ In logic, when the first part of an implication is false, the whole implication is
considered true.
Since one statement is false while the other is true, this proves that
∀x(P(x)→Q(x)) and ∀x P(x)→∀x Q(x)
are not logically equivalent.