1
$\begingroup$

"Anyone who has cats as pets will not have mice": $$\forall x[\exists zHave(x,cat(z))]\rightarrow \forall y[\neg Have(x,mouse(y))]$$

I need to translate this into conjunctive normal form. So the first thing I do is eliminate the $\rightarrow$:

$$\forall x [\neg \exists z Have(x,cat(z))] \vee \forall y[\neg Have(x,mouse(y))]$$

Then we apply the negation:

$$\forall x[\forall z \neg Have(x,cat(z))] \vee \forall y[\neg Have(x,mouse(y))]$$

Then apply the Skolem function & drop universal quantifiers (?):

$$\neg Have(x,F(x)) \vee \neg Have(x, G(y))$$

So this last sentence is in conjunctive normal form, but I'm not sure if it means the same thing as the original sentence. The last sentence may read as "$x$ has a cat or $x$ has a mouse." Is this the same thing as "Anyone who has cats as pets will not have mice?" Are my steps correct?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The $\exists y \neg Have(x,mouse(y))$ is translated as there is a mouse you don't have, not that you don't have a mouse. You need the negation on the outside, or a universal quantifier. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Oct 21 '14 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ @James Thank you. I fixed that. Is the resulting reduction correct now? $\endgroup$ Oct 21 '14 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ No, there are still problems. In the first step, you have introduced a negation in front of the $\forall x$ and after it. There should only be one negation. I presume that the $\forall x$ is supposed to have widest scope, even though this isn't consistent with your brackets. Hence you need to drop the $\neg$ out front. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Oct 21 '14 at 1:32
  • $\begingroup$ Also, a less pressing, but still strange thing, is that you are using $cat(z)$ and $mouse(y)$ as functions, even though it would be more conventional to have relations representing the property of being a cat, and a mouse, respectively. $\endgroup$
    – James
    Oct 21 '14 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ @James I have tried to correct my mistakes. Does this look good now? $\endgroup$ Oct 21 '14 at 1:37
1
$\begingroup$

Ok, I decided to convert the comments into an answer. The sentence in English is "Anyone who has cats as pets will not have mice". This naturally translates as $$\forall x (\exists y(Cat(y) \land Have(x,y))\rightarrow \neg \exists z (Mouse(z) \land Have(x,z)))$$ remove $\rightarrow$

$$\forall x (\neg\exists y(Cat(y) \land Have(x,y))\lor \neg \exists z (Mouse(z) \land Have(x,z)))$$

move negations in

$$\forall x (\forall y(\neg Cat(y) \lor \neg Have(x,y))\lor \forall z (\neg Mouse(z) \lor \neg Have(x,z)))$$

Pull out quantifiers

$$\forall x,y,z (\neg Cat(y) \lor \neg Have(x,y) \lor \neg Mouse(z) \lor \neg Have(x,z))$$

Skolem function things (trivial step as there are no existentials). Drop universals

$$\neg Cat(y) \lor \neg Have(x,y) \lor \neg Mouse(z) \lor \neg Have(x,z)$$

$\endgroup$
0

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.