If we have

A(X) = x is in this arcade

W(X) = "x won a grand prize"

P(x) = "x played Pac-Man"

how would I express "A person in this arcade won a grand prize," and "Nobody in this arcade played Pac-Man." As premises in a quantified logical statement.

What I have done so far is $\forall x(\neg A(x) \implies P(x))$ and $\exists x (A(x) \implies W(x)$

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that I'm allowed to answer until you've shown work. Place to start would be to consider the various ways of using the tools: $\forall x, ~\exists x,~$ and $~\neg (\cdots)$. From this perspective, what have you tried and where are you having trouble? $\endgroup$ – user2661923 Oct 3 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ yeah I edited the original post to show what I think the answer is $\endgroup$ – ej21vf Oct 3 at 18:27

"A person in this arcade won a grand prize"

$\exists x (A(x) \implies W(x))$

See e.g. here for a detailed explanation of why your formulization is incorrect: As a rule of thumb, with $\exists$ use $\land$ and with $\forall$ use $\implies$, so instead write

$\exists x(A(x) \land W(x))$

"Nobody in this arcade played Pac-Man."

$\forall x(\neg A(x) \implies P(x))$

Your formula says "Everyone who is not in this arcade played Pac-Man". But what you want to say is "Everyone who is in this arcade did not play Pac-Man", that is, the negation should be applied to the playing Pac-Man, not to the being in the arcade:

$\forall x (A(x) \implies \neg P(x))$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ +1 nice detail.... $\endgroup$ – user2661923 Oct 4 at 9:57

$[~\exists x ~(A(x) \wedge W(x))~]$
$\{\neg ~~[\exists x ~(A(x) \wedge P(x))~]~~\}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.