0
$\begingroup$

I was doing an exercise that said convert the statement "Jane saw a police officer, and Rodger saw one too" into the logical equivalent using quantifiers. My answer was: $$ \exists x(P(x)\implies S(j,x)) \land \exists y(P(y)\implies S(r,y)) $$ where $P(x)$ stands for "$x$ is a police officer", $S(x,y)$ stands for "$x$ saw $y$" with $j$ & $r$ standing for Jane and Rodger.

But the answer in the back of the book is:

$$ \exists x(P(x)\land S(j,x)) \land \exists y(P(y)\land S(r,y)) $$

Obviously the statements aren't logically equivalent but it seems that the statement $P(x)\implies S(j,x)$ is stating that "if $x$ is police officer then Jane saw $x$" which is the same as $P(x)\land S(j,x)$ being true. I'm guessing the problem is that the truth table values for the implication $A\implies B$ in the cases where it's not false (False implies True and False implies False) and thus differ from the truth table for $A \land B$ but is that relevant to this application since to me it seems we are only interested in the cases that make $P(x)$ (and $S(x,y)$) true and thus eliminating the cases that make the truth tables for "$\implies$" and "$\land$" differ. But I suppose that since we are stating that there exists an $x$ such that $P(x)\implies S(j,x)$ couldn't that mean the $x$ may be the case that makes both $P(x)$ and $S(j,x)$ false but consequently making the implication true.

So I guess my question is why aren't these two statements equivalent in this application? I'm still only just beginning logic so I've probably overlooked something or I don't fully understand it.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The two statements :

$\exists x (P(x) \Rightarrow S(J,x))$

and

$\exists x (P(x) \land S(J,x))$

are not equivalent in general, as you have verified through truth-tables.

The first one is true when $Jane$ saw a man (call it $m$) which is a $Doctor$, because in this case $P(m)$ is false and so $P(m) \Rightarrow S(J,m)$ is a true sentence. Introducing $\exists$ we get a true sentence.

The sentence $P(m) \land S(J,m)$, instead, is false, because the first conjunct is. So again, introducing the quantifier, we get a false sentence.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The problem is where you assume that "if x is a police officer then Jane saw x" is the same as P(x)∧S(j,x) being true. It isn't. The "if..then" statement neither claims that there actually is a police officer nor that Jane actually saw one. It states a certain relationship between two facts exists, not the facts themselves.

$\endgroup$

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.