0
$\begingroup$
∑ = ( { a, b, c, d }, { f¹ }, { P², Q¹ } ) U = { ♡, ♢, ♣, ♤ }       { a -> ♤, b -> ♡, c -> ♣, d -> ♤ }, f∑ = { f¹ -> { ♤ -> ♣, ♣ -> ♤, ♡ -> ♢, ♢ -> ♡ } },      { P² -> { (♡, ♣), (♡, ♤), (♢, ♣), (♢, ♤) }, Q¹ = { ♢, ♡ } } 

∀x.Q(x) -> Q(a) is it true or false? I've been told that it is true, but

Q(b) -> Q(a) T    -> F        -- should be false, right? 

Am I missing something here?

It is written exactly as ∀x.Q(x) -> Q(a), no extra parenthesis or anything...

  • 9
    Yes, you're missing something here. The first thing you're missing is one or more _complete sentences_ that explain what the heck you're on about, rather just some unexplained lines of symbols.2012-10-08

2 Answers 2

1

One needs to use parentheses properly, or interpret the arguably ambiguous expression as intended. It looks as if the dot is intended to bind the $\forall x$ to $Q(x)$. So I would interpret the expression as $(\forall x Q(x))\rightarrow Q(a)$. An analysis along your lines will show that it is true.

As for the less plausible interpretation $\forall x(Q(x)\rightarrow Q(a))$, that is false in most structures.

  • 0
    Could you explain `(∀xQ(x))→Q(a)` a little bit? I don't understand how it is true...2012-10-08
  • 0
    In your structure (that is, with your interpretation of $Q$ and $a$) the antecedent $\forall x Q(x)$ is false, so the implication is true. In *any* structure, if (the interpretation of) $Q$ holds at every object, then it holds in particular at (the interpretation of) $a$.2012-10-08
  • 0
    Oh, now I see it, I believe I was reading as the second interpretation... Thanks a lot!2012-10-08
4

Pleas check carefully: Do you mean $$\forall x\colon (Q(x)\to Q(a))$$ or $$(\forall x\colon Q(x))\to Q(a)$$ ? That should make things clear.