I'm very new to first-order logic. I've been working on some tasks below, and would appreciate if somone could check if I have understood and solved the questions correctly


Assume that $B$, $F$ and $K$ are relational symbols so that

  • $Bx$ interpreted as "$x$ is a biologist
  • $Fx$ interpreted as "$x$ is a philosopher"
  • $Kxy$ interpreted as "$x$ knows $y$"

Assume that $a, b$ and $c$ are constant symbols which represents Aristoteles, Bolzano and Copernicus. Find first-order logic formulas for following sentences:

  1. Aristotle is both a biologist and a philosopher
  2. All biologists are philosophers
  3. No philosophers are biologists
  4. Aristoteles knows a philosopher
  5. Bolzano knows all philosophers
  6. Copernicus knows only biologists

Here are my answers:

  1. There exists one $x$ so that Aristoteles is a $Gx$ and a $Fx$, written as $\exists$$x(Bx(a)$ $\land$ $Fx(a)$

  2. For all $x$ if $x$ are $Bx$ so $x$ are $Fx$, written as $\forall$$x$$(Bx(x$) $\rightarrow$ $Fx(x)$

  3. It's not that there is an $x$ such that $x$ are $Fx$ and $x$ are $Bx$, written as $\lnot$$\exists$$x(Fx(x) \land Bx(x)$

  4. There exists one $x$ such that Aristoteles knows a $Fx$, written as $\exists$$x(Kxy(a, Fx)$

  5. Not sure

  6. Not sure

I would appreciate any help and please feel free to correct me if I've done something wrong.

Thank you.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint for 5: We rephrase that to "For all philosophers, Bolzano ______" $\endgroup$ – apnorton Oct 28 '13 at 1:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hint for 6: What does it imply about $x$ if Copernicus knows $x$? $\endgroup$ – apnorton Oct 28 '13 at 1:23

For $(1)$, we do not need a quantifier:

$(1) \quad B(a) \land F(a)$

For $(4)$, we need $\exists x(F(x) \land K(ax))$.

$(5) \quad \forall x(F(x) \rightarrow K(bx))$

$(6) \quad \forall x(\lnot B(x)\rightarrow \lnot K(cx))\equiv \forall x(K(cx) \rightarrow B(x))$. "For all x, if x is not a biologist, then Copernicus does not know x" $\equiv$ "For all x, if Copernicus knows x, then x is a biologist."

Also, be careful with parentheses on $(2), (3)$: you're missing closing parentheses. (Also on $(4)$, but I've included it above.)

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Then I assume $(2)$ and $(3)$ is correct? $\endgroup$ – Dabbish Oct 28 '13 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ Yes indeed. The English is awkward, but your symbolizations for $(2), (3)$ are spot on, save for the missing parentheses. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Oct 28 '13 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ haha, English is not my first language, so I apologize, regarding the $(2)$ question would $\forall$$x$$(Bx(x))$ $\rightarrow$ $Fx(x)$ be more correct? I added 1 more paranthese $\endgroup$ – Dabbish Oct 28 '13 at 1:29
  • $\begingroup$ No, it would be $\forall x(B(x) \rightarrow F(x))$ $\endgroup$ – Namaste Oct 28 '13 at 1:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, I'm sorry, I saw your double use of x in (2) and (3): B(x): x is a biologist, F(x): x is a philosopher. $(3)\quad \lnot \exists x(F(x) \land B(x))$. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Oct 28 '13 at 1:31

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.