1
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to work out a class exercise and I've got myself stuck. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

I am to use use predicate logic reasoning techniques to solve the following problem:

All academics who are computer scientists are programmers or mathematicians. Any logistician is a philosopher. Jack Jones is not a philosopher and he is not a programmer. Prove that if Jack Jones is a logistician, he is not a computer scientist.

Here's what I have done so far.

All academics who are computer scientists are programmers or mathematicians. All (∀) academics who are computer scientists (B) are programmers or mathematicians (C). ∀x[B(x) -> C(x)]

Any logistician is a philosopher. Any (∀) logistician (F) is a philosopher (G). (∃x)[F(x) -> G(x)]

Jack Jones (x) is not a philosopher (H) and he is not a programmer (J). ¬H(x) /\ ¬J(x)

Prove that: if Jack Jones is a logistician, he is not a computer scientist.

  • If Jack Jones is not a programmer then he cannot be a computer scientist.
  • Jack Jones is not a philosopher, however, not all philosophers are logisticians (or not all logisticians are philosophers).
  • Meaning Jack Jones can be a logistician without being a philosopher and a computer scientist.
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ How exactly are you to prove this? You give an informal proof ... is that what you are supposed to do? $\endgroup$
    – Bram28
    Jun 7, 2017 at 13:39

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Some of the information is irrelevant, but it can be proven as follows:

  • Cx = x is a computer scientist
  • Px = x is a programmer
  • Lx = x is a logistician
  • Fx = x is a philosopher
  • j = Jack Jones

\begin{array}{l} & \{1\} & 1. & \forall x[Lx \Rightarrow Fx] & \text{ Prem. }\\ & \{2\} & 2. & \neg Fj \land \neg Pj & \text{ Prem. }\\ & \{3\} & 3. & Lj & \text{ Assum. }\\ & \{1\} & 4. & Lj \Rightarrow Fj & \text{ 1 UE }\\ & \{1,3\} & 5. & Fj & \text{ 3,4 MP }\\ & \{6\} & 6. & Cj & \text{ Assum. }\\ & \{1,3,6\} & 7. & Fj \land Cj & \text{ 5,6 $\land$I }\\ & \{1,3,6\} & 8. & Fj & \text{ 7 $\land$E }\\ & \{1,3\} & 9. & Cj \Rightarrow Fj & \text{ 6,8 CP }\\ & \{2\} & 10. & \neg Fj & \text{ 2 $\land$E }\\ & \{1,2,3\} & 11. & \neg Cj & \text{ 9,10 MT }\\ & \{1,2\} & 12. & Lj \Rightarrow \neg Cj & \text{ 3,11 CP }\\ \end{array}

Explanation:

  1. Premise: For every x, if x is a logistician, x is a philosopher.
  2. Premise: Jack Jones is neither a philosopher nor a programmer.
  3. Let's assume that Jack is a logistician.
  4. From our premise on line 1, if Jack is a logistician, he is a philosopher.
  5. It follows from our assumption that he is a philosopher.
  6. Let's assume that Jack is also a computer scientist.
  7. Given these assumptions, Jack would be both philosopher and a computer scientists. (This step may seem redundant, but it's use by logicians to establish a connection between the propositions.)
  8. Jack is a philosopher. (Because of line 7, this assertion is now shown to depend on line 1, 3 and 6, whereas before it depended only on line 6. Again, it's used to establish a logical connection.)
  9. If Jack is a logistician, he is a philosopher. (Because line 7 is shown to depend on line 3, line 7 is considered to be a logical consequence of 3, establishing the implication. The assumption on 3 is discharged.)
  10. According to the premise on 2, Jack is not a philosopher;
  11. Therefore Jack cannot be a logistician. (This is the application of Modus Tollens, together with the implication on line 9. If Jack were a logistician, line 9 says that he would also be a philosopher, contradicting the premise.)
  12. Based on the assumption on line 3, the conclusion is established: If Jack is a logistician, he is not a computer scientist. (The assumption on 3 is also discharged.)
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Is there any chance you could explain it step by step please? $\endgroup$
    – Mcclaine
    Jun 11, 2017 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Mcclaine. I edited my answer to explain the steps. $\endgroup$
    – User4407
    Jun 11, 2017 at 16:03

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.