0
$\begingroup$

I want to translate the following sentence to predicate logic Sentence:

The one who dont love himself cannot love anyone else

Translated into predicate logic my attempt is

$\forall x(Person(x)\implies \lnot\exists y(Love(x,x)\lor Love(x,y)))$

Something tells me this is not correct. Would anyone care to show me how to do this correctly?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You probably either want to not specify that $x$ is a person (and instead assume that the domain of discourse is "people") or specify that $y$ is a person, at least. $\endgroup$ – Patrick Stevens Mar 11 '18 at 13:12
3
$\begingroup$

It should be $\forall x (\mathrm{Person}(x) \land \neg \mathrm{Love}(x, x) \to \neg\exists y(\mathrm{Person}(y)\land \mathrm{Love}(x, y))$. What you wrote was, "Given any person $x$, no $y$ exists such that $x$ loves both $x$ or $y$".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually it's "...such that x loves x or x loves y" $\endgroup$ – Henrik supports the community Mar 11 '18 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ This seems OK to me, but I am used to : symbol to signal "such that" for example $\forall x :$, $\nexists y :$ et.c. but I have not studied much logic so maybe I recall / learned it wrong. $\endgroup$ – mathreadler Mar 11 '18 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Henrik Thanks; I misread the OP's post. $\endgroup$ – J.G. Mar 11 '18 at 14:05
0
$\begingroup$

This is probably not what the exercise wants, but I would make a distinction between does love and can love. That is, a person may be capable of loving someone, but simply doesn't. Let's write this as $Does(x,y)$ if $x$ does love $y$ and $Can(x,y)$ if $x$ can love $y$. Then the sentence becomes

$$\forall x(\lnot Does(x,x)\implies \forall y(\lnot(y=x)\implies\lnot Can(x,y)))$$

or, if you need to explicitly limit yourself to the universe of people,

$$\forall x(Person(x)\implies(\lnot Does(x,x)\implies\forall y(Person(y)\land\lnot(y=x)\implies\lnot Can(x,y))))$$

Note, the "$\lnot(y=x)$" here stems from the "else" in "anyone else." The sentence as stated does not assert that a person who doesn't love himself cannot love himself; if that were true, psychotherapists would have to admit defeat with a lot of their patients.

$\endgroup$

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.