0
$\begingroup$

"Everyone who Patricia likes, Sue doesn't like"
Let $L(x,y)$ stand for "$x$ likes $y$" and $p,s$ for Patricia and Sue, respectively.

Then the statement in logic is:

$\forall x (L(p,x) \implies \neg L(s,x))$

$= \forall x(\neg L((p,x) \vee \neg L(s,x) )$
$=\forall x \neg(L(p,x)\wedge L(s,x))$
$= \neg \exists(L(p,x) \wedge L(s,x))$

I don't understand the first statement of equivalence, $\forall x(\neg L((p,x) \vee \neg L(s,x) )$, and I also don't understand why the original statement in logic is valid, since:

$\neg P \vee \neg Q = \neg(P \wedge Q)$, and a true hypothesis cannot imply a false conclusion: $P \implies \neg Q$ is invalid, right? since the conclusion must be true if the hypothesis (premise) is true, in other words, the conclusion is "forced" to be true by the premise, right?

So if $P \implies \neg Q$ is invalid, then how can the original statement, $\forall x (L(p,x) \implies \neg L(s,x))$, which is the form of an invalid argument, be valid? $P$ is true, yet $Q$ is false. And how is the original statement in logic equivalent to the first equivalence, $\forall x(\neg L((p,x) \vee \neg L(s,x) )$?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are working in predicate logic and not in propositional calculus ... Thus when you translate the statement "Everyone who Patricia likes, Sue doesn't like" as a propositional formula, you get $P \to \lnot Q$ which (as you say correctly) is not valid (it is not a tautology). Reading it as a predicate calculus formula you make a "finer" logical analysis of its structure, getting : $\forall x (L(p,x) \to \lnot L(s,x))$, but neither this formula is valid. What you have to prove is the equivalence between this formula and $∀x(¬L((p,x)∨¬L(s,x))$. 1/2 $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 13 '15 at 7:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Having poved that $∀x(L(p,x) \to \lnot L(s,x)) \equiv ∀x(¬L((p,x) ∨ ¬L(s,x))$, now we can conclude that the formula : $∀x(L(p,x)→¬L(s,x)) \leftrightarrow ∀x(\lnot L((p,x) ∨ \lnot L(s,x))$ is valid. 2/2 $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 13 '15 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ @MauroALLEGRANZA thank you so much. I would accept this as the final answer and upvote it if you type this in the answer section. $\endgroup$ – Emi Matro Apr 14 '15 at 19:16
1
$\begingroup$

The original sentence is: "Everyone who Patricia likes, Sue does not like."

The first statement in logic reads: "For every person $X$ in the set the following is true: if $X$ is liked by Patricia, then $X$ is not liked by Sue."

The next statement in logic reads: "For every person $X$ in the set the following is true: $X$ is not liked by Patricia, or not liked by Sue, or not liked by both Patricia and Sue."

Clearly all three statements are equivalent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks +1 So then $P$ is $L(p,x)$ and Q is $\neg L(s,x)$? I just don't understand why the premise leads to a negation...isn't that invalid? $\endgroup$ – Emi Matro Apr 13 '15 at 2:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, that is not invalid. In logic the NOT-operator is a key ingredient in formulating statements. This allows one to say: "X is liked by Patricia" implies "X is not liked by Sue". There is nothing wrong with that. $\endgroup$ – M. Wind Apr 13 '15 at 3:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.