0
$\begingroup$

In restricting the domains of the universal and existential quantifiers, all of the examples that I've seen take the form: $\forall x \in X[P(x)]$. But what is the correct syntax for more complicated domain restrictions such as $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $x < 0$?

Consider an assertion like: "The equation $x^2 + a = 0$ has a real root for any negative real number, a."

I know that this can be expressed as: $\forall a \in \mathbb{R} \exists x[a < 0 \implies x^2 + a = 0]$.

Can it also be expressed as: $\forall a \in \mathbb{R} \land a < 0 \exists x[x^2 + a = 0]$?

What about $\forall a \in \mathbb{R}, a < 0 \exists x[x^2 + a = 0]$?

Thanks for the help.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Are you able to cite a source that does not treat your "$\forall x \in X[P(x)]$" as a syntax hack for your equivalent implication, and then only for single operator constraints? It may help you to know that your initial predicate variable constraint is sensical in a order-sorted logics, but your complex constraint is not, except using the equivalent implication for the non-sort constraint. $\endgroup$ – Eric Towers Jun 20 '18 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ Sure. Here's an example from U of Maine: "Universal Quantifier: $(\forall x \in U) P(x)$ means "for all (or any) x in the set U, such that P(x) is true." The link is: math.umaine.edu/~farlow/sec13.pdf The Stanford MOOC (Introduction to Mathematical Thinking) I'm taking uses that same syntax and shows it as equivalent to the implication version. Nothing I've seen suggests that it is a hack. Anyway, given that there is syntax for applying a quantifier to set membership, it seemed natural to ask whether you could apply a quantifier to more complex expressions in order to limit the domain. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Jun 20 '18 at 1:14
  • $\begingroup$ Another common example is $(\forall x < 0)P(x)$. From U of Arizona: "$\forall x > 0\exists y(y^2 = x)$". Link is here: math.la.asu.edu/~boerner/mat243/… But never anything more complex than that. Again, since it there is syntax for applying a quantifier to an inequality to limit domain, it seemed reasonable to ask whether the same syntax could be applied for a more complex expression. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Jun 20 '18 at 1:25
0
$\begingroup$

"The equation $x^2+a=0$ has a real root for any negative real number $a$"

reads :

"for every $a$, if $a$ is real and negative, then the equation $x^2+a=0$ has a real root",

i.e. :

"for every $a$, if $a$ is real and negative, then there is a $b$ such that $b$ is real and $b^2+a=0$."

Now we can easily symbolize it :

$\forall a \ [(a \in \mathbb R \land a < 0) \to \exists b \ (b \in \mathbb R \land b^2+a=0)]$,

or equivalently :

$\forall a \ \exists b \ [(a \in \mathbb R \land a < 0) \to (b \in \mathbb R \land b^2+a=0)].$

Note. If we want to use the restricted quantifier notation, we can rewrite is as follows :

$\forall a_{(a \in \mathbb R \land a < 0)} \exists b_{(b \in \mathbb R)} \ (b^2+a=0),$

or, in an "intermediate" version as :

$\forall a_{(a \in \mathbb R)} \exists b_{(b \in \mathbb R)} \ (a < 0 \to b^2+a=0).$

IMO, we have not gained so much regarding readibility.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much for clarifying and including the link on restricted quantifier notation. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Jun 20 '18 at 15:15

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.