1
$\begingroup$

There is someone who can fool exactly one person besides himself or herself
Predicate given: F(x, y): x can fool y.
My answer attempt:
ヨxヨy (F(x, y) ⋀ ((x = y) V ( (x ≠ y) ⋀ ∀k(F(x, k) -> (k = y))))

Way of thinking:
There exists a person x and there exists a person y for which x can fool y and if so, then either x IS y OR if x is not y, and if for all k, x can fool k, then k is indeed y.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $F(x,x)$ the first clause is true, as is the $x=y$ part in the second $\lor$-statement. So the whole statement is then true automatically $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 19 '17 at 9:56
2
$\begingroup$

You're almost there. I would say:

$$\exists x (\exists y: F(x,y) \land (\forall z: (F(x,z) \land (z \neq x)\rightarrow z=y)$$

In words: there is some $x$ that can fool some $y$ and if we ever find someone that is fooled by $x$ and is not $x$ itself, it must have been $y$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, your answer makes perfect sense. But, I can't find out where my answer went wrong. I have a doubt in the portion: ( (x ≠ y) ⋀ ∀k(F(x, k) -> (k = y))) $\endgroup$ – Ciado Feb 19 '17 at 6:12
  • $\begingroup$ If $F(x,x)$ holds your statement is true, regardless whether there are other $y$ that $x$ fools. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Feb 19 '17 at 9:54

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.