First order logic - is this a valid interpretation of a sentence?First-order logic: how-to produce...

Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?

C++ copy constructor called at return

Does the reader need to like the PoV character?

What is the difference between lands and mana?

Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Creating two special characters

Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?

PTIJ: Why is Haman obsessed with Bose?

Why is the Sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?

What kind of floor tile is this?

What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?

Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?

Shouldn’t conservatives embrace universal basic income?

Why does this expression simplify as such?

How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?

Will number of steps recorded on FitBit/any fitness tracker add up distance in PokemonGo?

The Digit Triangles

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?

Why do ¬, ∀ and ∃ have the same precedence?

Which was the first story featuring espers?

What are some good ways to treat frozen vegetables such that they behave like fresh vegetables when stir frying them?

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?



First order logic - is this a valid interpretation of a sentence?


First-order logic: how-to produce interpretation where a given formula is false?Question about understanding an Interpretation definition in First Order LogicCounterexample for first order logic argumentFirst Order Logic question using moelsAre these arguments invalid?Construct a truth table for the following sentence to determine whether the argument is valid or invalid P ∨ Q, P → R, ¬R ∴ QWhy not ban nested quantifiers over the same variable?Interpretation of knowledge in first order logicAn invalid argument with one or more false premisesHow to evaluate truth value of quantified formula?













2












$begingroup$


In the book I'm reading, the following argument is presented



There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.



The premise is symbolised as ∃x(Lx) while the conclusion is symbolised as ∃x(Tx). The following interpretation is given to show that the argument is invalid:



Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



L(x) ↔ x = 1



T(x) ↔ x = 2



So that the premise ∃x(Lx) is true when x = 1 whereas the conclusion ∃x(Tx) is false with respect to the domain.



My confusion comes from '2' being in the predicate T(x). 2 isn't in the domain and I'd like to know if interpretations such as this is really allowed in first order logic. Sure the interpretation 'x=2' has the same number of free variables as T(x), but since 2 isn't in the domain, shouldn't 'x=2' technically have no meaning in this domain and therefore no truth value?






logic first-order-logic predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:16










  • $begingroup$
    Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:18










  • $begingroup$
    So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:28












  • $begingroup$
    In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 13 at 7:35












  • $begingroup$
    Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:44
















2












$begingroup$


In the book I'm reading, the following argument is presented



There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.



The premise is symbolised as ∃x(Lx) while the conclusion is symbolised as ∃x(Tx). The following interpretation is given to show that the argument is invalid:



Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



L(x) ↔ x = 1



T(x) ↔ x = 2



So that the premise ∃x(Lx) is true when x = 1 whereas the conclusion ∃x(Tx) is false with respect to the domain.



My confusion comes from '2' being in the predicate T(x). 2 isn't in the domain and I'd like to know if interpretations such as this is really allowed in first order logic. Sure the interpretation 'x=2' has the same number of free variables as T(x), but since 2 isn't in the domain, shouldn't 'x=2' technically have no meaning in this domain and therefore no truth value?






logic first-order-logic predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:16










  • $begingroup$
    Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:18










  • $begingroup$
    So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:28












  • $begingroup$
    In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 13 at 7:35












  • $begingroup$
    Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:44














2












2








2





$begingroup$


In the book I'm reading, the following argument is presented



There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.



The premise is symbolised as ∃x(Lx) while the conclusion is symbolised as ∃x(Tx). The following interpretation is given to show that the argument is invalid:



Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



L(x) ↔ x = 1



T(x) ↔ x = 2



So that the premise ∃x(Lx) is true when x = 1 whereas the conclusion ∃x(Tx) is false with respect to the domain.



My confusion comes from '2' being in the predicate T(x). 2 isn't in the domain and I'd like to know if interpretations such as this is really allowed in first order logic. Sure the interpretation 'x=2' has the same number of free variables as T(x), but since 2 isn't in the domain, shouldn't 'x=2' technically have no meaning in this domain and therefore no truth value?






logic first-order-logic predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the book I'm reading, the following argument is presented



There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.



The premise is symbolised as ∃x(Lx) while the conclusion is symbolised as ∃x(Tx). The following interpretation is given to show that the argument is invalid:



Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



L(x) ↔ x = 1



T(x) ↔ x = 2



So that the premise ∃x(Lx) is true when x = 1 whereas the conclusion ∃x(Tx) is false with respect to the domain.



My confusion comes from '2' being in the predicate T(x). 2 isn't in the domain and I'd like to know if interpretations such as this is really allowed in first order logic. Sure the interpretation 'x=2' has the same number of free variables as T(x), but since 2 isn't in the domain, shouldn't 'x=2' technically have no meaning in this domain and therefore no truth value?






logic first-order-logic predicate-logic




logic first-order-logic predicate-logic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 13 at 8:02









Mauro ALLEGRANZA

67.3k449115




67.3k449115










asked Mar 13 at 7:13









UnknowledgeableUnknowledgeable

262




262








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:16










  • $begingroup$
    Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:18










  • $begingroup$
    So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:28












  • $begingroup$
    In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 13 at 7:35












  • $begingroup$
    Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:44














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:16










  • $begingroup$
    Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
    $endgroup$
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Mar 13 at 7:18










  • $begingroup$
    So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:28












  • $begingroup$
    In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Berci
    Mar 13 at 7:35












  • $begingroup$
    Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 7:44








1




1




$begingroup$
Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 13 at 7:16




$begingroup$
Obviously, we can interpret variables with elements in the domain; but also constants must refer to elements in the domain. Thus, what is the meaning of the constant $2$ ?.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 13 at 7:16












$begingroup$
Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 13 at 7:18




$begingroup$
Consider as domain the set $mathbb N$ of naturals with $0$. Let $L(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is greater-or-equal to $0$" and let $T(x)$ interpreted with "$x$ is less than $0$".
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mar 13 at 7:18












$begingroup$
So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
$endgroup$
– Unknowledgeable
Mar 13 at 7:28






$begingroup$
So you mean to say that the interpretation 'x=2' is not a valid interpretation when the domain is {1,3} (which excludes 2)? This is what I thought essentially. I was just surprised this appeared in the author's example and I started questioning myself (the author is quite knowledgeable you see)
$endgroup$
– Unknowledgeable
Mar 13 at 7:28














$begingroup$
In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Mar 13 at 7:35






$begingroup$
In my interpretation, it's either a typo ($3$ could be $2$), or '$x=2$' is simply considered a valid statement which never holds on the given domain.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Mar 13 at 7:35














$begingroup$
Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Unknowledgeable
Mar 13 at 7:44




$begingroup$
Ah I see what you mean... I can make an interpretation like 'x = elephant' and it would be a valid interpretation except that it would be false. I think I got it. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Unknowledgeable
Mar 13 at 7:44










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

You are right. Normally, in a structure with domain $mathcal{A}$ and $mathcal{I}$, for an $n$-ary predicate $P$, $mathcal{I}(P^n) subseteq mathcal{A}^n$, i.e. interpretation of an 1-ary predicate is a subset of the domain, the interprtation of an $2$-ary predicate is a subset of $mathcal{A} times mathcal{A}$, ...,

Your book might presuppose some weird definition of models in which non-logical symbols can be interpreted as anything, but normally you'd want models to be closed systems, in the sense that interpretating some predicate shouldn't shoot you out of the domain of the model.



In order to prove that $exists x L(x) not vDash exists x T(x)$, they should rather have presented a model in which there are liears but no thieves at all, e.g.



$$text{domain} = {1}; mathcal{I}(L) = {1}; mathcal{I}(T) = emptyset$$



Or, with the $leftrightarrow$ notation,
$$L(x) leftrightarrow x = 1; T(x) leftrightarrow bot$$
- but this notation presupposes that 1 (and 2 etc.) are constants, which, as Mauro Allegranza points out in their comment, need to be assigned an interpretation as well in order to be any meaningful.



May I ask which book you are using, and how they define models? If they nowhere give a precise definition of what an interpretation of a predicate is, then it's probably not a good book anyway.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:01










  • $begingroup$
    The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:02










  • $begingroup$
    Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:37










  • $begingroup$
    Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49










  • $begingroup$
    ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49



















0












$begingroup$

Your counter-example with domain $D = { 1,3 }$ can be misleading, due to the fact that the number two is not in $D$...



It works when we interpret $L(x)$ as the property "x is equal to one" and $T(x)$ as the property "x is equal to two".



We have to carefully avoid the conflation of "objects" and "names": according to the semantics for first-order logic we can have objects (i.e. elements of the domain) without name (i.e. without individual constants referring to them) but we cannot have constants without reference.



Another counter-example can be based on the following interpretation for $L(x)$ and $T(x)$ respectively :




"$x text { is Odd}$" and "$x text { is Even}$".




In this case, the argument will become:




There are Odd numbers. Therefore, there are Even numbers.




which is clearly falsified in ${ 1,3 }$.



But, IMO, the examples above are not based on what the author call: arithmetical interpretation, i.e. an interpretation in the domain of positive integers (see Patrick Suppes, Introduction to Logic, page 64).



An arithmetical counter-example, based on domain $mathbb N = { 1, 2, ldots }$, will be the following:




let $L(x)$ interpreted as $(x ge 1)$ and let $T(x)$ interpreted as $(x < 1)$.





Having found suitable interpretations showing that: $ ∃xL(x) nvDash ∃xT(x)$, we have showed that the argument:




There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.




is not valid.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:13










  • $begingroup$
    Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:47





















0












$begingroup$

When it says:




Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



L(x) ↔ x = 1



T(x) ↔ x = 2




it is not considering $x=2$ to be a logic formula that is yet to be interpreted, but rather it indicates for which objects of the domain the predicate holds true (so yes, that's very confusing; they mix up logic notation with mathematical expressions about the interpretation)



So, it says that the predicate $T$ holds for object $2$ ... which is not part of the domain .. and so in effect there are no thieves at all. Which is what you want, since object $1$ is a liar, and therefore the premise is true, and the conclusion is false, and thus we have a counterexample, as desired.



What I don;t understand, though, is that they could simply have picked the domain as ${ 1 }$ ... that would have worked just as well.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146210%2ffirst-order-logic-is-this-a-valid-interpretation-of-a-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    You are right. Normally, in a structure with domain $mathcal{A}$ and $mathcal{I}$, for an $n$-ary predicate $P$, $mathcal{I}(P^n) subseteq mathcal{A}^n$, i.e. interpretation of an 1-ary predicate is a subset of the domain, the interprtation of an $2$-ary predicate is a subset of $mathcal{A} times mathcal{A}$, ...,

    Your book might presuppose some weird definition of models in which non-logical symbols can be interpreted as anything, but normally you'd want models to be closed systems, in the sense that interpretating some predicate shouldn't shoot you out of the domain of the model.



    In order to prove that $exists x L(x) not vDash exists x T(x)$, they should rather have presented a model in which there are liears but no thieves at all, e.g.



    $$text{domain} = {1}; mathcal{I}(L) = {1}; mathcal{I}(T) = emptyset$$



    Or, with the $leftrightarrow$ notation,
    $$L(x) leftrightarrow x = 1; T(x) leftrightarrow bot$$
    - but this notation presupposes that 1 (and 2 etc.) are constants, which, as Mauro Allegranza points out in their comment, need to be assigned an interpretation as well in order to be any meaningful.



    May I ask which book you are using, and how they define models? If they nowhere give a precise definition of what an interpretation of a predicate is, then it's probably not a good book anyway.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:01










    • $begingroup$
      The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:02










    • $begingroup$
      Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:37










    • $begingroup$
      Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49










    • $begingroup$
      ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49
















    0












    $begingroup$

    You are right. Normally, in a structure with domain $mathcal{A}$ and $mathcal{I}$, for an $n$-ary predicate $P$, $mathcal{I}(P^n) subseteq mathcal{A}^n$, i.e. interpretation of an 1-ary predicate is a subset of the domain, the interprtation of an $2$-ary predicate is a subset of $mathcal{A} times mathcal{A}$, ...,

    Your book might presuppose some weird definition of models in which non-logical symbols can be interpreted as anything, but normally you'd want models to be closed systems, in the sense that interpretating some predicate shouldn't shoot you out of the domain of the model.



    In order to prove that $exists x L(x) not vDash exists x T(x)$, they should rather have presented a model in which there are liears but no thieves at all, e.g.



    $$text{domain} = {1}; mathcal{I}(L) = {1}; mathcal{I}(T) = emptyset$$



    Or, with the $leftrightarrow$ notation,
    $$L(x) leftrightarrow x = 1; T(x) leftrightarrow bot$$
    - but this notation presupposes that 1 (and 2 etc.) are constants, which, as Mauro Allegranza points out in their comment, need to be assigned an interpretation as well in order to be any meaningful.



    May I ask which book you are using, and how they define models? If they nowhere give a precise definition of what an interpretation of a predicate is, then it's probably not a good book anyway.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:01










    • $begingroup$
      The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:02










    • $begingroup$
      Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:37










    • $begingroup$
      Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49










    • $begingroup$
      ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49














    0












    0








    0





    $begingroup$

    You are right. Normally, in a structure with domain $mathcal{A}$ and $mathcal{I}$, for an $n$-ary predicate $P$, $mathcal{I}(P^n) subseteq mathcal{A}^n$, i.e. interpretation of an 1-ary predicate is a subset of the domain, the interprtation of an $2$-ary predicate is a subset of $mathcal{A} times mathcal{A}$, ...,

    Your book might presuppose some weird definition of models in which non-logical symbols can be interpreted as anything, but normally you'd want models to be closed systems, in the sense that interpretating some predicate shouldn't shoot you out of the domain of the model.



    In order to prove that $exists x L(x) not vDash exists x T(x)$, they should rather have presented a model in which there are liears but no thieves at all, e.g.



    $$text{domain} = {1}; mathcal{I}(L) = {1}; mathcal{I}(T) = emptyset$$



    Or, with the $leftrightarrow$ notation,
    $$L(x) leftrightarrow x = 1; T(x) leftrightarrow bot$$
    - but this notation presupposes that 1 (and 2 etc.) are constants, which, as Mauro Allegranza points out in their comment, need to be assigned an interpretation as well in order to be any meaningful.



    May I ask which book you are using, and how they define models? If they nowhere give a precise definition of what an interpretation of a predicate is, then it's probably not a good book anyway.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    You are right. Normally, in a structure with domain $mathcal{A}$ and $mathcal{I}$, for an $n$-ary predicate $P$, $mathcal{I}(P^n) subseteq mathcal{A}^n$, i.e. interpretation of an 1-ary predicate is a subset of the domain, the interprtation of an $2$-ary predicate is a subset of $mathcal{A} times mathcal{A}$, ...,

    Your book might presuppose some weird definition of models in which non-logical symbols can be interpreted as anything, but normally you'd want models to be closed systems, in the sense that interpretating some predicate shouldn't shoot you out of the domain of the model.



    In order to prove that $exists x L(x) not vDash exists x T(x)$, they should rather have presented a model in which there are liears but no thieves at all, e.g.



    $$text{domain} = {1}; mathcal{I}(L) = {1}; mathcal{I}(T) = emptyset$$



    Or, with the $leftrightarrow$ notation,
    $$L(x) leftrightarrow x = 1; T(x) leftrightarrow bot$$
    - but this notation presupposes that 1 (and 2 etc.) are constants, which, as Mauro Allegranza points out in their comment, need to be assigned an interpretation as well in order to be any meaningful.



    May I ask which book you are using, and how they define models? If they nowhere give a precise definition of what an interpretation of a predicate is, then it's probably not a good book anyway.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Mar 13 at 7:49









    lemontreelemontree

    1,184622




    1,184622












    • $begingroup$
      I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:01










    • $begingroup$
      The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:02










    • $begingroup$
      Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:37










    • $begingroup$
      Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49










    • $begingroup$
      ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49


















    • $begingroup$
      I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:01










    • $begingroup$
      The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:02










    • $begingroup$
      Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:37










    • $begingroup$
      Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49










    • $begingroup$
      ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
      $endgroup$
      – lemontree
      Mar 13 at 8:49
















    $begingroup$
    I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:01




    $begingroup$
    I actually have not yet learned models (and the book hasn't introduced them) so I don't fully understand your explanation yet. I do agree that they should have presented a model with liars but no thieves though. Thanks for your answer, I'll defo come back to it after learning about models.
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:01












    $begingroup$
    The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:02




    $begingroup$
    The book I'm reading is old actually. Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes. I think it gave some new contributions to Logic at the time of its publication
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:02












    $begingroup$
    Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:37




    $begingroup$
    Regarding the definition of an interpretation, it offers the following: "Sentence P is an interpretation of formula Q with respect to the domain of individuals D if and only if P can be obtained from Q by substituting predicates and operation symbols defined for the individuals in the domain D for the predicates and operation symbols respectively of Q and by substituting proper names of individuals in D for proper names (i.e., individual constants) and free variables of Q." Since 'x=2' is a predicate not defined in the domain, I guess it's an invalid interpretation as suspected
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:37












    $begingroup$
    Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49




    $begingroup$
    Ignore my previous, now deleted comment. The crucial part is "substituting [...] proper names of individuals in D for [...] free variables of Q." According to this, 2 needs to be a proper name. So whether "x=2" is a proper name depends on whether "2" is a proper name in the language that has itself an interpretaton, which should again be in the domain D. Its semantic validity in turn depends on whether that interpretation makes the argument valid; but with the interpreation given, the only way to refute $exists x T(x)$ is to not have any elements in the interpration of T at all, ...
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49












    $begingroup$
    ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49




    $begingroup$
    ... so no matter what individual the proper name "2" is supposed to refer to, given that it has to be something from the domain (1 or 3), either interpretation will not support the conclusion. So my judgement is that this is a syntactically valid definition, provided that "2" is a proper name, but semantically nonsensical, provided that the interpreation of "2" has to be in the domain ${1,3}$.
    $endgroup$
    – lemontree
    Mar 13 at 8:49











    0












    $begingroup$

    Your counter-example with domain $D = { 1,3 }$ can be misleading, due to the fact that the number two is not in $D$...



    It works when we interpret $L(x)$ as the property "x is equal to one" and $T(x)$ as the property "x is equal to two".



    We have to carefully avoid the conflation of "objects" and "names": according to the semantics for first-order logic we can have objects (i.e. elements of the domain) without name (i.e. without individual constants referring to them) but we cannot have constants without reference.



    Another counter-example can be based on the following interpretation for $L(x)$ and $T(x)$ respectively :




    "$x text { is Odd}$" and "$x text { is Even}$".




    In this case, the argument will become:




    There are Odd numbers. Therefore, there are Even numbers.




    which is clearly falsified in ${ 1,3 }$.



    But, IMO, the examples above are not based on what the author call: arithmetical interpretation, i.e. an interpretation in the domain of positive integers (see Patrick Suppes, Introduction to Logic, page 64).



    An arithmetical counter-example, based on domain $mathbb N = { 1, 2, ldots }$, will be the following:




    let $L(x)$ interpreted as $(x ge 1)$ and let $T(x)$ interpreted as $(x < 1)$.





    Having found suitable interpretations showing that: $ ∃xL(x) nvDash ∃xT(x)$, we have showed that the argument:




    There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.




    is not valid.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:13










    • $begingroup$
      Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:47


















    0












    $begingroup$

    Your counter-example with domain $D = { 1,3 }$ can be misleading, due to the fact that the number two is not in $D$...



    It works when we interpret $L(x)$ as the property "x is equal to one" and $T(x)$ as the property "x is equal to two".



    We have to carefully avoid the conflation of "objects" and "names": according to the semantics for first-order logic we can have objects (i.e. elements of the domain) without name (i.e. without individual constants referring to them) but we cannot have constants without reference.



    Another counter-example can be based on the following interpretation for $L(x)$ and $T(x)$ respectively :




    "$x text { is Odd}$" and "$x text { is Even}$".




    In this case, the argument will become:




    There are Odd numbers. Therefore, there are Even numbers.




    which is clearly falsified in ${ 1,3 }$.



    But, IMO, the examples above are not based on what the author call: arithmetical interpretation, i.e. an interpretation in the domain of positive integers (see Patrick Suppes, Introduction to Logic, page 64).



    An arithmetical counter-example, based on domain $mathbb N = { 1, 2, ldots }$, will be the following:




    let $L(x)$ interpreted as $(x ge 1)$ and let $T(x)$ interpreted as $(x < 1)$.





    Having found suitable interpretations showing that: $ ∃xL(x) nvDash ∃xT(x)$, we have showed that the argument:




    There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.




    is not valid.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:13










    • $begingroup$
      Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:47
















    0












    0








    0





    $begingroup$

    Your counter-example with domain $D = { 1,3 }$ can be misleading, due to the fact that the number two is not in $D$...



    It works when we interpret $L(x)$ as the property "x is equal to one" and $T(x)$ as the property "x is equal to two".



    We have to carefully avoid the conflation of "objects" and "names": according to the semantics for first-order logic we can have objects (i.e. elements of the domain) without name (i.e. without individual constants referring to them) but we cannot have constants without reference.



    Another counter-example can be based on the following interpretation for $L(x)$ and $T(x)$ respectively :




    "$x text { is Odd}$" and "$x text { is Even}$".




    In this case, the argument will become:




    There are Odd numbers. Therefore, there are Even numbers.




    which is clearly falsified in ${ 1,3 }$.



    But, IMO, the examples above are not based on what the author call: arithmetical interpretation, i.e. an interpretation in the domain of positive integers (see Patrick Suppes, Introduction to Logic, page 64).



    An arithmetical counter-example, based on domain $mathbb N = { 1, 2, ldots }$, will be the following:




    let $L(x)$ interpreted as $(x ge 1)$ and let $T(x)$ interpreted as $(x < 1)$.





    Having found suitable interpretations showing that: $ ∃xL(x) nvDash ∃xT(x)$, we have showed that the argument:




    There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.




    is not valid.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Your counter-example with domain $D = { 1,3 }$ can be misleading, due to the fact that the number two is not in $D$...



    It works when we interpret $L(x)$ as the property "x is equal to one" and $T(x)$ as the property "x is equal to two".



    We have to carefully avoid the conflation of "objects" and "names": according to the semantics for first-order logic we can have objects (i.e. elements of the domain) without name (i.e. without individual constants referring to them) but we cannot have constants without reference.



    Another counter-example can be based on the following interpretation for $L(x)$ and $T(x)$ respectively :




    "$x text { is Odd}$" and "$x text { is Even}$".




    In this case, the argument will become:




    There are Odd numbers. Therefore, there are Even numbers.




    which is clearly falsified in ${ 1,3 }$.



    But, IMO, the examples above are not based on what the author call: arithmetical interpretation, i.e. an interpretation in the domain of positive integers (see Patrick Suppes, Introduction to Logic, page 64).



    An arithmetical counter-example, based on domain $mathbb N = { 1, 2, ldots }$, will be the following:




    let $L(x)$ interpreted as $(x ge 1)$ and let $T(x)$ interpreted as $(x < 1)$.





    Having found suitable interpretations showing that: $ ∃xL(x) nvDash ∃xT(x)$, we have showed that the argument:




    There are liars. Therefore, there are thieves.




    is not valid.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Mar 13 at 10:03

























    answered Mar 13 at 8:02









    Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA

    67.3k449115




    67.3k449115












    • $begingroup$
      Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:13










    • $begingroup$
      Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:47




















    • $begingroup$
      Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:13










    • $begingroup$
      Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – Unknowledgeable
      Mar 13 at 8:47


















    $begingroup$
    Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:13




    $begingroup$
    Really appreciate your answers, although my main trouble was deciding whether or not 'x=2' is a valid interpretation because 2 is outside the domain
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:13












    $begingroup$
    Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:47






    $begingroup$
    Ah I think I get it. The interpretation is valid for as long as I assign 2 to mean something in the domain (either 1 or 3). Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Unknowledgeable
    Mar 13 at 8:47













    0












    $begingroup$

    When it says:




    Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



    L(x) ↔ x = 1



    T(x) ↔ x = 2




    it is not considering $x=2$ to be a logic formula that is yet to be interpreted, but rather it indicates for which objects of the domain the predicate holds true (so yes, that's very confusing; they mix up logic notation with mathematical expressions about the interpretation)



    So, it says that the predicate $T$ holds for object $2$ ... which is not part of the domain .. and so in effect there are no thieves at all. Which is what you want, since object $1$ is a liar, and therefore the premise is true, and the conclusion is false, and thus we have a counterexample, as desired.



    What I don;t understand, though, is that they could simply have picked the domain as ${ 1 }$ ... that would have worked just as well.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      When it says:




      Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



      L(x) ↔ x = 1



      T(x) ↔ x = 2




      it is not considering $x=2$ to be a logic formula that is yet to be interpreted, but rather it indicates for which objects of the domain the predicate holds true (so yes, that's very confusing; they mix up logic notation with mathematical expressions about the interpretation)



      So, it says that the predicate $T$ holds for object $2$ ... which is not part of the domain .. and so in effect there are no thieves at all. Which is what you want, since object $1$ is a liar, and therefore the premise is true, and the conclusion is false, and thus we have a counterexample, as desired.



      What I don;t understand, though, is that they could simply have picked the domain as ${ 1 }$ ... that would have worked just as well.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        When it says:




        Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



        L(x) ↔ x = 1



        T(x) ↔ x = 2




        it is not considering $x=2$ to be a logic formula that is yet to be interpreted, but rather it indicates for which objects of the domain the predicate holds true (so yes, that's very confusing; they mix up logic notation with mathematical expressions about the interpretation)



        So, it says that the predicate $T$ holds for object $2$ ... which is not part of the domain .. and so in effect there are no thieves at all. Which is what you want, since object $1$ is a liar, and therefore the premise is true, and the conclusion is false, and thus we have a counterexample, as desired.



        What I don;t understand, though, is that they could simply have picked the domain as ${ 1 }$ ... that would have worked just as well.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        When it says:




        Let the domain be {1,3} and the predicates L(x) and T(x) be interpreted as :



        L(x) ↔ x = 1



        T(x) ↔ x = 2




        it is not considering $x=2$ to be a logic formula that is yet to be interpreted, but rather it indicates for which objects of the domain the predicate holds true (so yes, that's very confusing; they mix up logic notation with mathematical expressions about the interpretation)



        So, it says that the predicate $T$ holds for object $2$ ... which is not part of the domain .. and so in effect there are no thieves at all. Which is what you want, since object $1$ is a liar, and therefore the premise is true, and the conclusion is false, and thus we have a counterexample, as desired.



        What I don;t understand, though, is that they could simply have picked the domain as ${ 1 }$ ... that would have worked just as well.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Mar 13 at 12:49









        Bram28Bram28

        63.8k44793




        63.8k44793






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146210%2ffirst-order-logic-is-this-a-valid-interpretation-of-a-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Nidaros erkebispedøme

            Image
            For det lutherske bispedømet, sjå Nidaros bispedøme. Nidaros erkebispedøme var eit katolsk erkebispedøme med sete i Nidaros. Det vart oppretta av kong Olav Kyrre mellom 1070 og 1080 som bispedøme. Bispedømet vart opphøgd til erkebispedøme i 1153. Erkebispedømet vart innstifta av pave Anastasius IV i 1154, og var i funksjon fram til reformasjonen i 1537. Erkebiskopen sitt hovudsete var Erkebispegarden, rett ved domkyrkja Nidarosdomen. Frå 1152 til 1154 var Nicholas Breakspear i Skandinavia som paveleg utsending, og organiserte opprettinga av erkesetet. Innhaldsliste 1 Utbreiing og jurisdiksjon 2 Overhyrdar 2.1 Lydbiskopar 3 Biskopar 3.1 Biskopar 3.2 Erkebiskopar Utbreiing og jurisdiksjon | Kart over den nordiske kyrkjeprovinsen (1153-1387) Erkebispedømet omfatta i tillegg til Noreg øyane i vest i Noregsveldet. Nidaros var eit metropolitanerkebispedøme med fylgjande underliggjande bispedøme suffraganar: Bj...
            Read more

            Birsay

            Image
            Tettstaden Birsay på Orknøyane. Ruinane av jarleplasset om lag midt i biletet. (Fotografi frå 2012) Utsikt mot Birsay og Brough of Brisay (fotografi frå 2009) Birsay er ein tettstad i eit sokn (parish) med same namn, nordvest på øya Mainland [Note 1] på Orknøyane, om lag 31 km frå Kirkwall. Staden er omtala fleire stader i Orknøyingasoga [1] , der han er kalla «Byrgesherad» (norrønt: Birgisherað ). Namnet skriv seg truleg frå elvenamnet Birgisá [2] . Innhaldsliste 1 Den gamle hovudstaden 2 Bispesetet 3 Jarlepalasset 4 Kjelder og utfyllande opplysningar 4.1 Notar 4.2 Fotnotar 4.3 Bakgrunnsstoff Den gamle hovudstaden | Hovudartikkelen for dette emnet er Torfinn Sigurdsson . Soknet er i dag i hovudsak ei jordbrukskommune men er mest kjend for dei mange kulturminna i området. Tettstaden Birsay blir gjerne omtala som «den gamle hovudstaden på Orknøyane» [3] , og ein viser d...
            Read more

            Was Woodrow Wilson really a Liberal?Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?Founding Fathers...

            Image
            Do VLANs within a subnet need to have their own subnet for router on a stick? What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'? Dragon forelimb placement How do we improve the relationship with a client software team that performs poorly and is becoming less collaborative? What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university? How to write a macro that is braces sensitive? Modeling an IPv4 Address Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected? Approximately how much travel t...
            Read more