Discrete Mathematics 2002 Lecture 15, 23-August-2002

Predicate Logic
• Last lecture: We introduced predicate logic,
with the aim of overcoming some inadequacies
in propositional logic
• Recall: A predicate is a statement such as
‘x < 3’, where x is any real no., or ‘y is in the
Heyward Library’, where y is any book title
The expressions ‘for all’ & ‘there exists’ are
called quantifiers, denoted by ∀ and ∃, resp.
• Example: If P(y) denotes ‘y is in the Heyward
Library’, what is meant by the expressions
∃y P(y) and ∀y P(y)?
1

Relations Between ∀, ∃ and ¬

• New laws of logic that involve ∀, ∃ and the 5
earlier connectives can be introduced
• We’ll look at just relations between ∀, ∃ and ¬
• Consider the propn ‘All accountants are rich’
• If P(x) denotes the predicate ‘Accountant x is
rich’, the proposition is ∀x P(x)
• Consider what happens when we apply not to
this propn – this is termed negating the propn
2

Negating a Proposition
• In symbols, the negation of the proposition is
¬[∀x P(x)]
• In words, the negation of the propn is
‘It is not true that all accountants are rich’
• More simply, this is
‘Not all accountants are rich’
• Another way of expressing this is
‘There is an accountant who is not rich’
• In symbols, this is ∃x [¬P(x)]
3

1
Discrete Mathematics 2002 Lecture 15, 23-August-2002

Some Laws of Predicate Logic

• So we have 2 different symbolic expressions for
the same thing
• This illustrates a law of predicate logic:
¬[∀x P(x)] ≡ ∃x [¬P(x)]
• i.e. Forming the negation corresponds to negating
the predicate and changing the quantifier
• In a similar way, there is another law (a ‘dual’):
¬[∃x P(x)] ≡ ∀x [¬P(x)]
• e.g. The negation of ‘There exists a yellow cow’
is ‘All cows are not yellow’
4

Example of Negating a Proposition

• Example: Obtain the negation of ‘For every real
no. x there is a real no. y such that x + y = 0’
• Solution: In symbols, the proposition is
∀x ∃y (x + y = 0)
Its negation is ¬[∀x ∃y (x + y = 0)]
≡ ∃x ¬[∃y (x + y = 0)] (by the 1st law)
≡ ∃x ∀y ¬(x + y = 0) (by the 2nd law)
≡ ∃x ∀y (x + y ≠ 0)
In words, the negation of the original propn is
‘There is a no. x such that, for all y, x + y ≠ 0’
5

Example (continued)
• Note that in the previous example, the
original propn ‘For every real no. x there is
a real no. y such that x + y = 0’ is true
• Its negation, which is ‘There is a no. x such
that, for all y, x + y ≠ 0’, is false
• This is what we’d expect – i.e. we’d expect
that the negation of a true statement is false

2
Discrete Mathematics 2002 Lecture 15, 23-August-2002

Testing an Argument’s Validity

• Recall (previous lecture) the argument:
It is not true that all animals are cows.
Therefore there is at least one animal that is
not a cow.
• Because of limitations in propositional logic,
we weren’t able to show this argument is valid
• We now use predicate logic to show the
argument is valid
• Let P(x) denote the predicate ‘x is an animal’
• Let Q(x) denote ‘x is a cow’
7

Testing an Argument (contd)

• Start by looking at the premise (1st sentence)
• The propn ‘All animals are cows’ can be written
as ‘For all x, if x is an animal, then x is a cow’
• In symbols, this is ∀x [P(x) → Q(x)]
• Thus the premise is ¬∀x [P(x) → Q(x)]
• The conclusion of the argument (2nd sentence) is
∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)]
• To show the argument is valid, we have to show
¬∀x [P(x) → Q(x)] → ∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)]
is a tautology
8

Testing an Argument (contd)

• Now, ¬∀x [P(x) → Q(x)]
≡ ∃x ¬[P(x) → Q(x)] (1st law of pred logic)
≡ ∃x ¬[¬P(x) ∨ Q(x)] (implication)
≡ ∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)] (de Morgan, double neg)
• Thus ¬∀x [P(x) → Q(x)] → ∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)]
≡ ∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)] → ∃x [P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x)]
≡ T (i.e. r → r is always T)
• Hence the logical expression is a tautology, &
so the argument is valid – however, we needed
to introduce predicate logic in order to show this
9

3
Discrete Mathematics 2002 Lecture 15, 23-August-2002

Historical Note
• Predicate logic was 1st described in
detail by Bertrand Russell & Alfred
North Whitehead in the 3-vol work
Principia Mathematica (1910-13)
• The aim of this work was to show
that mathematics can be deduced from logic
• They began by defining the connective nand (‘not
and’). [See Q.17, p.69 of text for info on nand.]
• By p.362 of the book, Russell & Whitehead had
concluded that ‘1 + 1 = 2’! (see next slide)
10

Reactions to Principia Mathematica

• Principia Mathematica attracts diverse reactions
– here are 2 reviews from Amazon.com:
• ‘Could it be true that … Principia Mathematica
is the most influential book written in the 20th
century? Ask any mathematician or philosopher
– or anyone who understands the impact these
fields have had on modern thinking – and you'll
get a short answer: yes.’
• ‘If you'd like to study the tread wear on old tires
in a junk yard rather than actually driving a car,
this is for you. Otherwise, this is the last book
you should bother reading.’ 12