1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to transcribe the following predicate logic sentence into English,

$ ( \forall x)( \forall y)[Dx \rightarrow (Cy \rightarrow Lxy)] $

I transcribed this as 'Every dog loves every cat.' However, the book I am using says the answer is 'All dogs and cats love each other.' I would've thought that the latter answer transcribes to predicate logic as,

$ ( \forall x)( \forall y)[Dx \rightarrow (Cy \rightarrow (Lxy \land Lyx))] $

Could someone please clarify this?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I agree with you in the sense that your book may not have explained the manner in which these relations work sufficiently.

It seems that the book assumes that the relation $L$ is symmetrical. When a relation is symmetrical, the order doesn't matter. Thus, we can imply that both of our options are taken into account. That being said, if $L$ is symmetrical, then $Lxy$ should equivalent to $Lyx$, and it seems like the book is implying this rule by direct application.

I do, however, think your transcription is also correct.

Edit: Maybe commutativity is not the proper term to use here. Instead, let's call it symmetrical, as pointed out by @Graham Kemp.

A relation $L$ is symmetrical exactly when $\forall_x \forall_y (Lxy \to Lyx)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The word you are after is "symmetrical". A relation, $L$, is symmetrical exactly when $\forall x\forall y~(Lxy\to Lyx)$ . $\endgroup$ – Graham Kemp Jul 18 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Graham. I went blank there for a second. $\endgroup$ – Imak Jul 18 at 4:49

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.