3
$\begingroup$

I'm doing some selfstudying and I'm lacking the anwsers to check if I'm correct. So this is why I'm on here so frequently, as I really want to understand the matter.

So here is the sentence I'm trying to convert to predicate logic:

Every boy who loves a girl is also loved by some girl.

DoD = Humans Here's what I got:

$\forall x(Bx \wedge \exists y(Gy\wedge Lxy))\rightarrow \exists z(Gz \wedge Lzx)$

With B being a boy, G being a Girl, and L x Loving y.

Thanks in advance, Rope.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It should be: $\forall x\left[\left[Bx\wedge\exists y\left[Gy\wedge Lxy\right]\right]\Rightarrow\exists y\left[Gy\wedge Lyx\right]\right]$ $\endgroup$ – drhab Jun 2 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your translation is correct, apart from a parenthesis problem. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Jun 2 '14 at 15:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In short you have $A\rightarrow E\left(x\right)$. In $A$ variable $x$ is bounded and in $E\left(x\right)$ it is not. $\endgroup$ – drhab Jun 2 '14 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ Ok so by adding the parenthesis I would include x into the last part of the formula? $\endgroup$ – Byebye Jun 2 '14 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, adding parentheses solves it. $\endgroup$ – drhab Jun 2 '14 at 16:00
1
$\begingroup$

You are saying here:

If every boy loves a girl then there is a girl that loves some particular boy yet to be specified.

See also my comment.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Symbol $x$ is not a constant, so it's not "a specific boy $x$", more like "some particular boy yet to be specified". Or perhaps "If every boy loves a girl, then there is a girl that loves <insert name here>." $\endgroup$ – dtldarek Jun 2 '14 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ @dtldarek Thanks, repaired. $\endgroup$ – drhab Jun 2 '14 at 16:02

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.