Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
4
Newest
 Editor
Impact
~774 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 5 votes cast
Apr
23
comment Satisfiability proof of formulas with pure literals
Hi thx for your reply. Yes, I understand the principle, but I have problems in formulating a precise (structural) induction proof.
Apr
23
comment Satisfiability proof of formulas with pure literals
Thx for the comment, I've edited my question and included the case for $\psi := \varphi \land \ell$. Is this going in the right direction?
Apr
22
comment Validity of a first-order formula
yay! Can I ask you yet another question, just to be sure: If I replace $r$ in $\varphi$ by $\doteq$ (equality), so now I am considering also the theory of equality and its axioms, then the formula becomes valid. So, each instance of $r(x,y)$ gets replaced by $x \doteq y$. My assumption is that, then the formula is valid. because $x$ and $y$ are equal and according to the predicate substitution axioms of equality theory $p(x)$ and $p(y)$ always evaluates to the same truth value. Is this kind of the right (formal) argument?
Apr
22
comment Validity of a first-order formula
Thank you for your reply. So, I choose $\mathbb N_0$ as my Domain. $I(x) = 0$, $I(y)=1$. Moreover the meaning of predicate $p$ is "is even". The meaning of the predicate $r(x,y)$ is $y$ is greater than $x$, and I am done?
Jan
29
comment Get rid of an existential quantifier
yeah thank you. i've edited my question