Predicative Logic

Universal & Existential Quantifiers.

The quantifier all is called as the Universal quantifier, denoted as
x.
Represents each of the following phrases:
For all x, All x are such that
For every x Every x is such that
For each x Each x is such that

The quantifier some is the Existential quantifier denoted as x.

Represents each of the following phrases:
There exists an x such that ...
There is an x such that ...
For some x ...
There is atleast one x such that ...
Some x is such that ...
The symbol !x. is read there is a unique x such that ... or There is one
and only one x such that ...
Ex: There is one and only one even prime.
!x, [x is an even prime]
!x, P(x) where P(x)x is an even prime integer.

Quantified statements and their abbreviated and meaning:

Sentence Abbreviated Meaning
x, F(x) All true
x, F(x) Atleast one true
~[x, F(x)] None true
x, [~F(x)] All false
x, [~F(x)] Atleast one false
~{x, [~F(x)} None false
~{x, [F(x)]} Not all true / Atleast one true
~{x, [~F(x)]} Not all false / Atleast one true
 All true {x, F(x)}  {~[x, ~F(x)]} None false
All false {x,[~(x)]}  {~[x, F(x)]} None true
Not all true {~[x, F(x)]}  {x,[~F(x)]} Atleast one false
Not all false {~[x,{~F(x)}]}  {x, F(x)} Atleast one true

Statement Negation
All true x, F(x) x, [~F(x)] Atleast one false
All false x, [~F(x)] x, F(x) Atleast one true

To form the negation of a statement involving one quantifier, change

the quantifier form universal to existential, or from existential to
universal, and negate the statement, which it quantifies.
Translate each of the following statements into symbols, using quantifiers, variables, and predicate
symbols.
1. All birds can fly.
2. Not all birds can fly.
3. All babies are illogical.
4. Some babies are illogical.
5. If x is a man, then x is a giant.
6. Some men are giants.
7. Some men are not giants.
8. All men are giants.
9. No men are giants.
10. There is a student who likes mathematics but not history.
11. x is an odd integer and x is prime.
12. For all integers x, x is odd and x is prime.
13. For each integer x, x is odd and x is prime.
14. There is an integer x such that x is odd and is prime
15. Not every actor is talented who is famous.
16. Some nos. are rational.
17. Some nos. are not rational.
18. Not all nos. are rational.
19. Not every graph is planar.
20. If some students are lazy, then all students are lazy.
21. x is rational implies that x is real.
22. Not all cars have Carburetors.
23. Some people are either religious or pious.
24. No dogs are intelligent.
25. All babies are illogical.
26. Every no. either is negative or has a square root.
27. Some nos. are not real.
28. Every connected and circuit free graph is a tree.
29. Not every graph is connected.
Examples:

1. Consider the argument.

All men are fallible.
All kings are men.
 All kings are fallible.
Let M(x) denote the assertion “x is a man”
K(x) denote the assertion “x is a king”
F(x) denote the assertion “x is fallible”
The above argument is symbolised as
x, [M(x)F(x)]
x, [K(x)M(x)]
 x, [K(x)F(x)]
Proof:
1) x, [M(x)F(x)] Premise 1
2) M(c)F(c) Step 1) and Rule 5
3) x, [K(x)M(x)] Premise 2
4) K(c)M(c) by 3) and Rule 5
5) K(c)F(c) by 2) & 4) and Rule 2
6) x, [K(x)F(x)] by 5) and Rule 6
2. Symbolize the following argument and check for its
validity:
Lions are dangerous animals.
There are lions.
There are dangerous animals.

Let L(x) denotes ‘x is a lion’

D(x) denotes ‘x is dangerous’
Symbolically
x,[L(x)D(x)]
x, L(x)
 x, D(x)
Proof:
1. X, [L(x)D(x)] Premise 1
2. L(c)D(c) by 1) and Rule 5
3. X, L(x). Premise 2
4. L(c) by 3) and Rule 7
5. D(c) by 2) & 4) and Rule 1
6. X, D(x) by 5) and Rule 8
 Examples

Ex: Let P(x) : x is a person

F(x,y) : x is the father of y
M(x,y) : x is the mother of y
Write the predicate “ x is the father of the mother of y ” in
symbolic form.
Solution: In order to symbolize the predicate,
let us assume a person called z as the mother of y.
Now, x is the father of z and z is the mother of y .
We symbolize the predicate as
(z) { P(z)  F(x , z)  M(z , y) }
 Ex: Symbolize the expression “All the world loves a
lover”

Solution: First, let us note that the quotation really means that
every body loves a lover.
Now let P(x) : x is a person
L(x) : x is a lover
Q(x , y) : x loves y
The required expression is
(x) [P(x)  (y){P(y)  L(y) Q(x , y)}]
 Ex: Symbolize the following argument and check for its validity:
Every living thing is a plant or animal.
David’s dog is alive and it is not a plant.
All animals have Hearts. Hence, David’s dog has a heart

Solution: Let the universe consists of all living things, and let
P(x) : x is a plant
A(x) : x is an animal
H(x) : x has a heart
a : David’s dog
Then the argument takes the form
(x) {P(x)  A(x)} ….(1)
P(a) ….(2)
x) {A(x) H(x)} ….(3)
 H(a)
The formal proof is given below:
From (1), By the rule of Universal Specification, we have P(a) 
A(a)
 Contd.,

P(a)  A(a) ….(4)

From (2) and (4), By the rule of Disjunctive syllogism,we have
A(a) ….(5)
From (3), By the rule of Universal Specification, we have
A(a) H(a) …(6)
From (5) and (6), By the rule of modus ponens,
H(a) follows
Hence, the argument is valid.
 Ex: Prove that (x){P(x)  Q(x)}  (x)P(x)  (x)Q(x)
Is the converse true? . Justify your answer.

Proof: L.H.S. = (x){P(x)  Q(x)}

By the rule of ES,we have
P(y)  Q(y) …(1), y fixed
P(y) …(2) , from (1)
Q(y) …(3), from (1)
From(2), By EG, we have
(x) P(x) ….(4)
From(3), By EG, we have
(x) Q(x) ….(5)
From (4) and (5), we have
(x) P(x)  (x) Q(x) = R.H.S
 Contd.,

Now, let us show that the converse of the above result is not
true
Consider, R.H.S. = (x) P(x)  (x) Q(x) …(1)
From (1), we have, (x) P(x) …..(2)
Again from (1), we have, (x) Q(x) …(3)
From (2), By ES,we have P(a) ….(4)
From (3), By ES,we have Q(b) ….(5)
Note that in step (4), a is fixed, and it is no longer possible to
use that variable again in step(5).
From (4) and (5), the L.H.S. (x) {P(x)  Q(x)} does not follows
Hence, the converse of the result does not hold.
 Ex: Show that (x) {P(x)  Q(x)}  (x) P(x)  (x)Q(x)

L.H.S = (x) {P(x)  Q(x)} ….(1)

We shall use the method of ‘proof by contradiction’
Let {(x) P(x)  (x) Q(x)} ….(2) (Additional premise)
{(x) P(x)  (x) Q(x)} ….(3)
From (3), we have, (x) Q(x) …..(4)
From (3), we have, (x) P(x) …..(5)
From (5), By the rule of ES, we have P(y) ….(6)
From (4), By the rule of US, we have Q(y) ….(7)
From (6) and (7), we have, P(y)  Q(y) …(8)
 {P(y)  Q(y)} …(9)
From (1),By the rule of US, we have {P(y)  Q(y)} …..(10)
 Contd.,

But, (9) and (10) cannot be simultaneously true.(Contradiction)

 our assumption (2), is wrong
Hence, the result follows.
 Ex: Show that from
(a) (x) {F(x) S(x)}  (y){M(y)  W(y)}
(b) (y) {M(y )  W(y)}
the conclusion, (x) {F(x)  S(x)} follows

Proof: Given premises are

(x) {F(x) S(x)}  (y){M(y)  W(y)} ……(1)
(y) {M(y )  W(y)} …..(2)
(2)  [(y) {M(y )  W(y)}] …(3)
 [(y) {M(y ) W(y)}] …(4)

From (1) and (4), By Modus tollens, we have

[(x) {F(x)  S(x)}] ….(5)
 [(x) {F(x) )  S(x)}] ….(6)
 [(x) {F(x))  S(x)}] ….(7)
The conclusion logically follows from the premises.
 Ex: Show that P(a,b) follows logically from the premises
(x) (y) { P(x,y) W(x,y)} and
W(a,b)

Solution: Given premises are

(x) (y) { P(x,y) W(x,y)} …(1)
W(a,b) …..(2)
From (1), By the rule of US, we have
(y) { P(a,y) W(a,y)} …..(3)
From (3), By the rule of US, we have
{ P(a,b) W(a,b)} …..(4)
From (2)and (4), By the rule of Modus ponens,
P(a,b) follows.
 Ex: Consider the statement ‘Given any positive integer, there is a
greater positive integer’. Symbolize the statement with and without
using the set of positive integers as the universe of discourse.

Case1: Let x and y are are restricted to set of positive integers.

The above statement can be written as
‘For all x, there exists a ‘y’ such that y is greater than x’
If G(x,y) is ‘x greater than y’
Then the given statement in symbolic form is (x) (y) G(y,x)

Case 2: If we do not impose the restriction on the universe of

discourse
and if we write I(x) : x is an integer,
then we can symbolize the given statement as
(x) [ I(x) (y) { I(y)  G(y , x)} ]
 Ex: prove the following argument
(1) (x) {P(x)  Q(x)}
(2) (x) [{P(x)  Q(x)}R(x)]
 (x) {R(x) P(x)}

Proof: From (1), By the rule of US, we have

P(c)  Q(c) ….(3)
From (2), By the rule of US, we have
{P(c)  Q(c)}  R(c) ..…(4)
From (4), By contra positive equivalence, we have
R(c)  {P(c)  Q(c)} ……(5)
Let R(c) ……………(6) (Additional premise)
From (5) and (6), By the rule of modus ponens, we have
P(c)  Q(c) ……………(7)
From (3) and (7), we have
{P(c)  Q( c )}  {P(c)  Q(c)}
 Contd.,

 P(c)  {Q( c )  Q(c)}

 P(c)  F
 P(c)
Now, By CP rule,
R(c) P(c) ….(8) follows
From (8), By the rule of UG, we have
(x) {R(x) P(x)}
Hence, the given argument is valid.
 Example:

Ex: Let L(x,y) denote the statement ‘x likes y’, where

the universe of discourse for both x and y is the set
of all people in the world.
Consider the statement
“ There is somebody whom no one likes”
Write the Statement in symbolic form.
Solution:
(y) (x) [ ~L(x , y)} ]
 Ex: Show that the negation of the sentence
(x) [{C(x)  B(x)}  A(x)}] is
(x) {C(x)  B(x)  A(x)}

Consider, {(x) [{C(x)  B(x)}  A(x)}] }

 {(x) [{C(x)  B(x)}  A(x)}] }
( Since P Q  P Q)
 {(x) [C(x)   B(x)  A(x)] }
(By demorgan’s law)
 (x) {C(x)  B(x)  A(x)}
(By demorgan’s law)
 Ex: Show that the negation of the sentence
(x) (y) [{F(x,y)  G(x,y)}  H(x,y)]
is (x) (y) { F(x,y)  G(x,y)  H(x,y)}

Consider {(x) (y) [{F(x,y)  G(x,y)}  H(x,y)] }

 {(x) (y) [{F(x,y)  G(x,y)}  H(x,y)] }

( Since, P Q  P
Q )

 (x) (y) {F(x,y)  G(x,y)  H(x,y)}

(By demorgan’s
law)
 Ex: Show that
(x) {B(x)  I(x)}  [(x){B(x)  I(x)}]

Proof: L.H.S.  [(x) {B(x)  I(x)}]

(Since, P  P)
 [(x) {B(x)  I(x)}]
( Since, P Q 
P Q )
 [(x){B(x)  I(x)}]
(By demorgan’s
law)
 Ex: Show that
(x) {N(x)  R(x)}  [(x) {N(x)  R(x)}]

Proof: L.H.S.   [(x) {N(x)  R(x)} ]

(Since, P 
P)
  [(x) {N(x)  R(x)}]
(By demorgan’s
law)

  [(x) {N(x)  R(x)}]

( Since, P Q 
P Q )