0
$\begingroup$

I cannot understand the following solution from my tutorial note.

The question is like this:

Let $P(x)$ be a predicate with universe of discourse $\{a,b,c\}$. The quantifier $\exists!$ is used to assert that there is a unique element of the universe of discourse which makes a predicate true. Now express $\exists ! xP(x)$ using only the operators $\land$, $\lor$ and $\lnot$.

The answer is:

$$\exists ! xP(x) \equiv P(a) \lor P(b) \lor P(c) \lor [\lnot P(a) \land P(b) \land \lnot P(c)] \lor [P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land \lnot P(c)]\lor [\lnot P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land P(c)]$$

What is the meaning of the last three parts?

$$\lor [\lnot P(a) \land P(b) \land \lnot P(c)] \lor [P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land \lnot P(c)]\lor [\lnot P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land P(c)]$$

  • 0
    I typeset your question to make it easier to read - please check I didn't make any mistakes in the notation.2012-10-08
  • 2
    "The answer" is incorrect -- for example it is true for the interpretation where $P$ hold s for _all_ three individuals, simply because then $P(a)$ is true and therefore $P(a)\lor\mathit{whatever}$ is automatically true too.2012-10-08
  • 0
    yes, that correct thank for the correction2012-10-09

1 Answers 1

1

The answer is wrong. It should read:

$$\exists!xP(x)\equiv [\lnot P(a) \land P(b) \land \lnot P(c)] \lor [P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land \lnot P(c)]\lor [\lnot P(a) \land \lnot P(b) \land P(c)]$$

The first term in square brackets says that $b$ has the property $P$ and $a$ and $c$ do not; the second says that $a$ has the property and $b$ and $c$ do not; and the third says that $c$ has the property and $a$ and $b$ do not. Since $a,b$, and $c$ are the only objects in the universe of discourse, these are the only three ways that exactly one of them can have the property $P$.

It should not include $P(a)\lor P(b)\lor P(c)$: that part alone is equivalent to $\exists xP(x)$, and $\exists xP(x)\lor\exists!xP(x)$ is equivalent to $\exists xP(x)$, not to $\exists!xP(x)$.

  • 0
    But suppose it is true that $a = b$ ... then the l.h.s. could be true and the r.h.s. false.2012-10-08
  • 0
    @Peter: Clearly we are to assume that the objects $a,b$, and $c$ are distinct.2012-10-08
  • 0
    @BrianScott Indeed we are! So the question as set is underspecified.2012-10-08
  • 0
    Thank Brian very clear explaintion2012-10-09
  • 0
    @user1660416: You’re very welcome.2012-10-09