3
$\begingroup$

I need some help with the follwing: Lets suppose that the sentence $\forall x: x\in I \rightarrow P(x)$ is false. Now consider the sentence $\forall x: x\in I \rightarrow (P(x) \ \& \ Q(x) ) \ \ \quad (1)$ for any property $Q(x)$, which is also obviously false. But now I can define a set I'=\left\{ x \in I| P(x) \right\}. So the sentence (1) should be equivalent to the sentence \forall x: x\in I' \rightarrow Q(x) But since sentence is now true, since there aren't any $x$ such that x \in I', because the first sentence was supposed to be false.

I'm sure the error is, that the two sentences are equivalent. But I can't pinpoint my error. Could someone tell me crystal-clear what I am doing wrong ?

  • 1
    Do you mean $\forall x: \lnot(x\in I \rightarrow P(x))$ or $\lnot (\forall x: x\in I \rightarrow P(x))$? They are not equivalent. The second needs a single $x \in I$ not to satisfy $P(x)$, while the first needs every $x \in I$ not to satisfy $P(x)$2011-07-10

2 Answers 2

5

The sentence with the colon (first line) is not a sentence in any formal language that I am acquainted with. Presumably it is meant to assert what would be ordinarily written as $\left(\forall x\right)\left(x\in I \implies P(x)\right).$ We are told that this sentence is false.

So there is an element $a$ of $I$ such that $P(a)$ is false. There may also be many elements $b$ of $I$ such that $P(b)$ is true.

Later, I' is defined as the subset of $I$ consisting of the $x$ in $I$ such that $P(x)$ is true. It is then asserted that I' is empty. But there is no reason to conclude that I' is empty.

Example: For example, let $I$ be the set of positive integers. Let $P(x)$ be the assertion that $x$ is prime. Then the assertion $\left(\forall x\right)\left(x\in I \implies P(x)\right)$ is false, since there are non-primes. But then I' is the set of primes, which is demonstrably non-empty.

Analysis: Why the mistake? The OP is experienced enough not to make an elementary error. The problem is with the bad notation, which is a hybrid between two not unreasonable standard notations. The first has already been used. The second standard notation, in a corrected version, would read: $\left(\forall x: x\in I\right) (P(x)).$ Note the absence of the implication symbol.

2

It's a little neater to avoid I' altogether and write your second displayed expression as $(\forall x \in I)[\lnot P(x) \to Q(x)]$; this captures the same idea.

I think that you've confused conjunction ('and') and disjunction ('or'). If your $(1)$ had been $(\forall x \in I)[P(x) \lor Q(x)]$ instead of $(\forall x \in I)[P(x) \land Q(x)]$, it would have been logically equivalent to $(\forall x \in I)[\lnot P(x) \to Q(x)]$, simply because $P(x) \lor Q(x)$ is logically equivalent to $\lnot P(x) \to Q(x)$. If at least one of $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ has to be true for each $x \in I$, then it is indeed true that whenever $P(x)$ fails, $Q(x)$ must hold, and conversely. But your $(1)$ says that both $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ have to be true for each $x \in I$, which is another matter altogether.