Math Problem Statement

Is the following first order logic statements logically equivilant 1) ∃u(A(u)→∃nS(n,available)) 2) ∃xA(x)→∃y∃z(S(y,z)∧(z=Available))

Solution

To determine if the two first-order logic statements are logically equivalent, let’s analyze them individually.

Statement 1:

  1. u(A(u)nS(n,available))\exists u (A(u) \rightarrow \exists n \, S(n, \text{available}))

This statement means:

  • There exists some uu such that, if A(u)A(u) holds, then there exists an nn for which S(n,available)S(n, \text{available}) is true.

Interpretation: This is essentially saying that if there exists a uu such that A(u)A(u) is true, then S(n,available)S(n, \text{available}) must hold for some nn. This could mean that if A(u)A(u) holds for some uu, then "available" is true for at least one instance of nn.

Statement 2:

  1. xA(x)yz(S(y,z)(z=Available))\exists x A(x) \rightarrow \exists y \exists z (S(y, z) \land (z = \text{Available}))

This statement can be broken down as follows:

  • If there exists some xx such that A(x)A(x) holds, then there exists some yy and zz such that S(y,z)S(y, z) is true and z=Availablez = \text{Available}.

Interpretation: This implies that if there exists an xx with property A(x)A(x), then there is a pair (y,z)(y, z) where S(y,z)S(y, z) is true and zz equals "Available".

Comparison for Logical Equivalence

Both statements seem to represent conditional forms:

  • In Statement 1, we have a condition over uu implying the existence of an nn such that S(n,available)S(n, \text{available}).
  • In Statement 2, if there exists an xx such that A(x)A(x), it implies the existence of a yy and zz such that S(y,z)S(y, z) holds and z=Availablez = \text{Available}.

The two statements are not logically equivalent because:

  1. Scope of Quantifiers: Statement 1 has u\exists u applied only to A(u)nS(n,available)A(u) \rightarrow \exists n S(n, \text{available}), whereas Statement 2 starts with xA(x)\exists x A(x) \rightarrow \ldots, introducing a slight difference in structure.
  2. Dependency of Variables: Statement 1 implies a direct relationship through uu to nn under the scope of u\exists u, while in Statement 2, we only need x\exists x for A(x)A(x), independent of how yy and zz are quantified later.

Thus, the two statements are not logically equivalent, as their structures and interpretations differ.

Would you like further details on this or have any questions?


Related Questions

  1. What other examples of logical equivalence in first-order logic exist?
  2. How can quantifiers affect logical equivalence in statements?
  3. Can conditional statements be logically equivalent even if they differ in quantifier order?
  4. How do free variables impact logical equivalence in logical statements?
  5. What are common methods for proving logical equivalence?

Tip:

When assessing logical equivalence in first-order logic, carefully analyze the placement and scope of quantifiers, as they can significantly alter the interpretation of a statement.

Ask a new question for Free

By Image

Drop file here or Click Here to upload

Math Problem Analysis

Mathematical Concepts

First-Order Logic
Logical Equivalence
Quantifiers

Formulas

-

Theorems

Logical Equivalence

Suitable Grade Level

Undergraduate Level - Logic