2
$\begingroup$

This is part of my homework (not mandatory and not accredited).

Please comment/answer if my reasoning for the exercises is correct, because I'd like to see if I understand the material.

I will start with the axioms to show what I am working with:

(T1) Every variable is a term
(T2) Every constant symbol is a term
(T3) An expression of the form $F(t_1, \dots , t_n)$ where $f$ is an $n-$ary function symbol and $t_1, \dots , t_n$ are terms, is again a term


(F1) Are $t_1,t_2$ terms, then $t_1=t_2$ is also a formula
(F2) Are $t_1, \dots , t_n$ terms and is $R$ an $n-$ary relation symbol, then $R(t_1, \dots , t_n)$ is a formula
(F3) Is $\varphi$ a formula, then $\neg \varphi$ is also a formula
(F4) Are $\varphi, \Phi$ formulas, then so are $(\varphi \wedge \Phi) ,( \varphi \vee \Phi), (\varphi \to \Phi), (\varphi \leftrightarrow \Phi)$
(F5) Is $\varphi$ a formula and $x$ a variable, then $\forall x \varphi$ and $\exists x \varphi$ is a formula

Exercise: Let $F_1$ be a $1$-ary, $F_2$ a $2$-ary, and $F_3$ a $3$-ary Function symbol. Let $R_2$ be a $2$-ary Relation symbol, $c$ a constant symbol and $x,y,z$ variables. Which of the following are syntactic correct terms or formulas? \begin{align}a) \ &F_3xF_3yF_3zF_2xF_1zzcc \\ b) \ & \neg \neg \neg\exists x \neg (( y = F_3xF_1y) \vee (x=x)) \\ c) \ & \forall x \neg(c=x) \vee \exists c(c=x)\end{align} My answer (or ideas):

$\cdot $ For a) I thought because I have troubles reading the Polish notation I should convert it into the notation I am used to.

My problem is now I don't know the rules to do that, my intuitive approach was to go from the inside to the outside, meaning I'd start with $F_1$ and associate one term to it and then continue with $F_2$, associate two terms to it and so on. With that logic I'd obtain: $$F_3xF_3yF_3zF_2xF_1zzcc = F_3\Bigg(x,F_3\bigg(y,F_3\Big(z,F_2\big(x,F_1(z)\big),z\Big),c\bigg),c\Bigg) $$ Edit: So the above term should be correct, we obtain a term again.

$ \cdot $ For b) Unlike as above, the Polish notation $F_3xF_1y$ seems not well defined

$\cdot $ c) This is a correct formula.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

a) looks fine. Another method would consist of assigning

  1. -1 to all constant and variable symbols.
  2. 0 to $F_1$ or any 1-ary
  3. 1 to $F_2$ or any 2-ary
  4. 2 to $F_3$ or any 3-ary

Then you sum those values as they appear in the sequence. If the only sum which equals -1 occurs corresponding to the very last symbol, and the very last symbol corresponds to -1, then you have a formula or term. Otherwise you don't have a formula. For your string this works out as follows:

 F3|  x| F3| y| F3| z| F2| x| F1| z| z| c|  c

 2 |  1| 3 | 2| 4 | 3| 4 | 3| 3 | 2| 1| 0| -1

And thus you have a term.

"b) Unlike as above, the Polish notation F3xF1y seems not well defined"

If you use the above suggestion we have

 F3  x  F1  y

 2   1  1   0

And thus, F$_3$xF$_1$y is not well-defined. We could also reason that F3 is a 3-ary function symbol, but we only have two arguments for that function "x" and "F$_1$y", and thus F$_3$xF$_1$y is not well-formed.

"c) This is a correct formula. "

No, it's not. Notice that c) is "∀x¬(c=x)∨∃c(c=x)". You have an "V" symbol. The only time "V" gets mentioned in the definition lies in clause F4.

"Are φ,Φ formulas, then so are (φ∧Φ),(φ∨Φ),(φ→Φ),(φ↔Φ)"

There does not exist a left-parenthetical symbol "(" before "∀", and a right-parenthetical symbol ")" after the second ")" in "∀x¬(c=x)∨∃c(c=x)".

(∀x¬(c=x)∨∃c(c=x)) would qualify as correct.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great answer, I appreciate it, thanks a lot for pointing out the importance of the parenthesis! $\endgroup$ – Spaced Sep 24 '14 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ I just realized that c) can't be correct due to (F5) as well, because $\exists c$ where $c$ is a constant symbol is not well defined. Is that right? $\endgroup$ – Spaced Sep 24 '14 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Spaced It looks like it's not according to that definition. However, from what I can tell usually quantification over constant symbols is allowed. $\endgroup$ – Doug Spoonwood Sep 24 '14 at 20:07

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.