I have some doubt related to the interpretation of atomics formulas in predicate calculus.

In predicate calculus a formula will be interpreted on a specific domain that is where I take the allowed values for the formula constants.

So I have a formula A such that:

$\{p_1,.....,p_n\}$: is the set of all the predicates into the A formula.

$\{t_1,.....,t_k\}$: is the set of all the constants that appear in the n predicates

So an interpretation of my A formula is a triad build in this way:

$I = \{D, \{R_1,....,R_n\}, \{d_1,....,d_k\}\}$ where:

1) $D$: is a not empty domain (so the constants are in $D$)

2) $R_i$ represents an assignment of a relation $n$-ary that goes in D (in a valid constant) for each p_i predicate

3) $d_i$: represents an assignment of a $d_j$ element, that belong to $D$, for each constant $a_j$ (this thing say also that a constant symbol of my language must be a value that is in the domain $D$)

So for example if I have this formula: enter image description here

A valid interpretation for the previous formula could be:

enter image description here

In which I say that:

1) The domain D is all the Natural Number set

2) The relation associated to the p predicate is the minor or equal relation

3) The value of the constant a must be into the domain D and is the natural number 0

And this is true because this say that in the natural number set exist a special element that is 0 that is the minimum element of the set

Is my reasoning correct until now? i hope yes...

Now I have a big doubt about the meaning of what on my book is called as INTERPRETATION OF ATOMICS FORMULA.

It say that give an atomic formula its interpretation is:

enter image description here if it is TRUE that: enter image description here and FALSE otherwise

I have some problem to unserstand what means this assertion.

I think that $P_i$ is a predicate that is into the set of the predicates of my language: **$\{p_1,.....,p_n\}$

but what is $a_1,...,a_n$ ? I think that are the constants used in this predicate.

I am not understanding what it means.

Someone can help me?




I'm going to start from scratch because your post is very long.

Let us start with a language $$ L=\{R_i \,:\, i\in I\}\cup\{f_j \,:\, i\in J\}\cup \{c_k\, :\, k\in K\} $$ The $R_i$ are relation symbols, the $f_j$ function symbols and the $c_k$ constant symbols with $I,J,K$ indexing sets. Now an interpretation/structure/model for this language is a tuple $$ \mathfrak{A}=\langle A,\{\textbf{R}_i \,:\, i\in I\},\{\textbf{f}_j \,:\, i\in J\}, \{\textbf{c}_k\, :\, k\in K\}\rangle$$ Where $A$ is a (depending on your conventions, possibly required to be non-empty) set, if the symbol $R_i$ is $n$-ary then the corresponding $\textbf{R}_i\subseteq A^n$. If the symbol $f_j$ is $n$-ary then the corresponding $\textbf{f}_j$ is a function $A^n\rightarrow A$ and $\textbf{c}_j\in A$.

The idea of this is that you just interpret a relation symbol as a relation on the domain, a function symbol as a function and a constant symbol as an element. Now we can use this to define a satisfaction relation on the formulae in the language $L$. But we have to be careful as we may have free-variables in the formula.

So inductively, let $i:\{\text{variables}\}\rightarrow A$. Then inductively we define an interpretation of terms, and use this to do formulae. $$ c_i^\mathfrak{A}=\textbf{c}_i $$ $$ x_i^\mathfrak{A}=i(x_i) $$ $$ f_i(t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_n)^\mathfrak{A}=\textbf{f}_i(t_1^\mathfrak{A},t_2^\mathfrak{A},\ldots,t_n^\mathfrak{A})$$ So the idea of this definition is that we find out the value of a term by evaluating any constants or variables according to $i$ and the structure $\mathfrak{A}$ and then apply functions as defined in the structure. Now we are ready to define satisfaction of an atomic.

Atomic formulas look like $t_1=t_2$ where $t_i$ are terms or like $R(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ where $R$ is an $n$-ary relation symbol and $t_i$ are terms. We define $$ (\mathfrak{A},i)\models t_1=t_2 \Leftrightarrow t_1^\mathfrak{A}=t_2^\mathfrak{A} $$ and $$ (\mathfrak{A},i)\models R(t_1,\ldots,t_n) \Leftrightarrow \langle t_1,\ldots,t_n\rangle\in \textbf{R} $$

So we say that a claim that $t_i=t_j$ is true if they are interpreted as the same object in the domain, and a claim that a relation $R$ holds of some $n$-tuple of terms if we have stipulated that the interpretation of the terms are in the domain of $\textbf{R}$.

Hope this clears a few things up.

  • $\begingroup$ It might be even more suggestive if you write $R^{\mathfrak{A}}$ instead of bold $R$, to match the notation for terms. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Jun 12 '13 at 15:24

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.