Hello people I have a simple question. I have this formula from which I need to remove all the implications. Here it is.

$\forall x ( [ Roman(x) \wedge know ( x, Marcus )] \rightarrow [ hate (x, Caesar ) \vee ( \forall y \exists z hate(y,z) \rightarrow thinkcrazy(x,y)) ])$

And here is the answer.

$\forall x \neg [Roman(x) \wedge know (x, Marcus)] \vee [ hate(x,Caesar) \vee (\forall y \neg \exists z hate(y,z) \vee thinkcrazy(x,y))]$

Then thing I can't understand is, why isn't the second universal quantificator negated (the one for y)? When do you do a negation on the quantifier ?


1 Answer 1


You have to remove the implication connective from :

$∀x([Roman(x) \land know(x,Marcus)] \rightarrow [hate(x,Caesar) \lor (∀y∃zhate(y,z) \rightarrow thinkcrazy(x,y))])$

Starting from the rightmost one, you have correctly used the equivalence between $p \rightarrow q$ and $\lnot p \lor q$.

But we have a problem with some missing parentheses; if we assume that the subformula is :

$∀y(∃zhate(y,z) \rightarrow thinkcrazy(x,y))$

then we can rewrite it as :

$∀y(\lnot ∃zhate(y,z) \lor thinkcrazy(x,y)$.

But this is an assumption [please, note that the "standard" convention is that the quantifiers apply to as little as possible]; if instead we "read" the subformula with a "narrow" scope for the universal quantifier, we must have instead :

$\lnot ∀y∃zhate(y,z) \lor thinkcrazy(x,y))$.

Going on with the first interpretation, we proceed in the same way, for the leftmost $\rightarrow$, obtaining :

$\forall x(\lnot [Roman(x) \land know(x,Marcus)] \lor [hate(x,Caesar) \lor (∀y(\lnot ∃zhate(y,z) \lor thinkcrazy(x,y))])$


You have to check for the correct formula.


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.