Fdtxjr

Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

What does this strange code stamp on my passport mean?

That's an odd coin - I wonder why

Gauss' Posthumous Publications?

How to pronounce fünf in 45

pgfplots: How to draw a tangent graph below two others?

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?

How can the PCs determine if an item is a phylactery?

My boss doesn't want me to have a side project

What difference does it make matching a word with/without a trailing whitespace?

Why do we say “un seul M” and not “une seule M” even though M is a “consonne”?

Is the 21st century's idea of "freedom of speech" based on precedent?

Could a dragon use its wings to swim?

How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?

Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?

How to compactly explain secondary and tertiary characters without resorting to stereotypes?

Could a dragon use hot air to help it take off?

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?

How does a dynamic QR code work?

Early programmable calculators with RS-232

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

Why does the freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

classical logic - rules for quantifiers

0

$begingroup$

I have these formulas of CL:

(a) ∀xP(x,x)

(b) ∀x∀y∀z(P(x,y)∧P(y,z) → P(x,z))

(c) ∀x∀y(P(x,y) → ¬P(y,x)

and I have been trying to prove weather (a),(b) ⊨ (c). First I would use ∀l and then my question is, can I apply this rule for every single ∀x (y or z) and then just have many eigenvariables or is there another way?

If anyone knows of exercises similar to this for practice that would be very helpful

logic proof-theory sequent-calculus

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Are you sure that you have to prove that $forall x P(x,x), forall x forall y forall z (P(x,y) land P(y,z) to P(x,z)) vdash forall x forall y (P(x,y) to lnot P(y,x)$ ? If you interpret $P$ as the equality, you can see that such a sequent is not provable.
  $endgroup$
  – Taroccoesbrocco
  Mar 20 at 11:29
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  In general, do you already have the completeness theorem for first-order logic at hand? Then it may be useful for any kind of derivability question to consider the corresponding version using the semantic entailment $models$.
  $endgroup$
  – blub
  Mar 20 at 11:40
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  (a), (b) $vDash$ (c) means that there is no interpretation that satisfies (a) and (b) but falsifies (c). You can check with a simple domain $D = a,b $ such that $P(a,a), P(a,b), P(b,a)$ and $P(b,b)$ all hold. In this case, both premises are TRUE and the conclusion is FALSE.
  $endgroup$
  – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  Mar 20 at 12:58
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

$begingroup$

I have these formulas of CL:

(a) ∀xP(x,x)

(b) ∀x∀y∀z(P(x,y)∧P(y,z) → P(x,z))

(c) ∀x∀y(P(x,y) → ¬P(y,x)

and I have been trying to prove weather (a),(b) ⊨ (c). First I would use ∀l and then my question is, can I apply this rule for every single ∀x (y or z) and then just have many eigenvariables or is there another way?

If anyone knows of exercises similar to this for practice that would be very helpful

logic proof-theory sequent-calculus

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Are you sure that you have to prove that $forall x P(x,x), forall x forall y forall z (P(x,y) land P(y,z) to P(x,z)) vdash forall x forall y (P(x,y) to lnot P(y,x)$ ? If you interpret $P$ as the equality, you can see that such a sequent is not provable.
  $endgroup$
  – Taroccoesbrocco
  Mar 20 at 11:29
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  In general, do you already have the completeness theorem for first-order logic at hand? Then it may be useful for any kind of derivability question to consider the corresponding version using the semantic entailment $models$.
  $endgroup$
  – blub
  Mar 20 at 11:40
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  (a), (b) $vDash$ (c) means that there is no interpretation that satisfies (a) and (b) but falsifies (c). You can check with a simple domain $D = a,b $ such that $P(a,a), P(a,b), P(b,a)$ and $P(b,b)$ all hold. In this case, both premises are TRUE and the conclusion is FALSE.
  $endgroup$
  – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  Mar 20 at 12:58
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I have these formulas of CL:

(a) ∀xP(x,x)

(b) ∀x∀y∀z(P(x,y)∧P(y,z) → P(x,z))

(c) ∀x∀y(P(x,y) → ¬P(y,x)

and I have been trying to prove weather (a),(b) ⊨ (c). First I would use ∀l and then my question is, can I apply this rule for every single ∀x (y or z) and then just have many eigenvariables or is there another way?

If anyone knows of exercises similar to this for practice that would be very helpful

logic proof-theory sequent-calculus

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

share|cite|improve this question

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

edited Mar 20 at 14:10

Graham Kemp

87.6k43578

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263

asked Mar 20 at 11:25

rumetalmIrumetalmI

263