#18 in Mathematical logic books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Logic
Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 3
We found 3 Reddit mentions of Logic. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- PENGUIN GROUP
Features:
Specs:
Height | 7.999984 Inches |
Length | 4.99999 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.46958461806 Pounds |
Width | 0.5999988 Inches |
What this expressions says
First of all let's specify that the domain over which these statements operate is the set of all people say.
Let us give the two place predicate P(x,y) a concrete meaning. Let us say that P(x,y) signifies the relation x loves y.
This allows us to translate the statement:
∀x∀yP(x,y) -> ∀xP(x,x)
What does ∀x∀yP(x,y) mean?
This is saying that For all x, it is the case that For all y, x loves y.
So you can interpret it as saying something like everyone loves everyone.
What does ∀xP(x,x) mean?
This is saying that For all x it is the case that x loves x. So you can interpret this as saying something like everyone loves themselves.
So the statement is basically saying:
Given that it is the case that Everyone loves Everyone, this implies that everyone loves themselves.
This translation gives us the impression that the statement is true. But how to prove it?
Proof by contradiction
We can prove this statement with a technique called proof by contradiction. That is, let us assume that the conclusion is false, and show that this leads to a contradiction, which implies that the conclusion must be true.
So let's assume:
∀x∀yP(x,y) -> not ∀xP(x,x)
not ∀xP(x,x) is equivalent to ∃x not P(x,x).
In words this means It is not the case that For all x P(x,x) is true, is equivalent to saying there exists x such P(x,x) is false.
So let's instantiate this expression with something from the domain, let's call it a. Basically let's pick a person for whom we are saying a loves a is false.
not P(a,a)
Using the fact that ∀x∀yP(x,y) we can show a contradiction exists.
Let's instantiate the expression with the object a we have used previously (as a For all statement applies to all objects by definition) ∀x∀yP(x,y)
This happens in two stages:
First we instantiate y
∀xP(x,a)
Then we instantiate x
P(a,a)
The statements P(a,a) and not P(a,a) are contradictory, therefore we have shown that the statement:
∀x∀yP(x,y) -> not ∀xP(x,x) leads to a contradiction, which implies that
∀x∀yP(x,y) -> ∀xP(x,x) is true.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Recommended Resources
Wilfred Hodges - Logic
Peter Smith - An Introduction to Formal Logic
Chiswell and Hodges - Mathematical Logic
Velleman - How to Prove It
Solow - How to Read and Do Proofs
Chartand, Polimeni and Zhang - Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics
Did I claim that it nullifies your initial position?
You've concocted a straw man.
All I pointed out is that the pot seems to be calling the kettle black with respect to "maturity".
If you can't comprehend the above, I recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics of logic :)
Here's a good starting point
I would just dive into it to see if it makes more sense! Here is a guide about delta epsilon proofs, which is one of the most common basic proofs you learn about in pure mathematics. Real Mathematical Analysis is a great textbook about real analysis. Also, if you're worried about the math, I would look into philosophical logic—Logic by Hodges is a good text for that and it won't involve any necessary background in math.