PPT-Negating Nested Quantifiers

More examples student is enrolled in class   1 Someone in your class has an Internet connection but has not chatted with anyone else in the class 2 There are two students in the class who between them have chatted with everyone else in the class. Nested Quantifiers. Needed to express statements with multiple variables . Example 1. : “. x+y. = . y+x. for all real numbers” . . xy. (. x+y. = . y+x. ) . where the domains of . x. and . Logic and Proof. Fall . 2011. Sukumar Ghosh. Predicate Logic. Propositional logic has limitations. Consider this:. Is . x. . > 3. a proposition? No, it is a . predicate. . Call it . P(x. ). . Propositional Logic Not Enough. Given the statements: . “All men are mortal.”. “Socrates is a man.”. It follows that “Socrates is mortal.”. This can’t be represented in propositional logic. . There are different types of determiners. . The . type of determiner depends on the type of noun. Singular nouns always need a determiner. Plural nouns the determiner is optional. Uncountable nouns the determiner is also optional. . What . is your quantifier quotient (QQ)?. Barbara . Zurer. . Pearson. bpearson@research.umass.edu. University of Massachusetts . Amherst. Language Acquisition . Colloquium. Background. This work is part of the preliminary studies for an . Logic and Proof. Fall 2014. Sukumar Ghosh. Predicate Logic. Propositional logic has limitations. Consider this:. Is . x. . > 3. a proposition? No, it is a . predicate. . Call it . P(x. ). . P(4) . if. Lesson. CS1313 Spring 2017. 1. Nested. . if. . Lesson Outline. Nested. if. Lesson . Outline. A Complicated . if. Example #1. A Complicated . if. Example #2. A Complicated . if. Example #3. Structures. Logic and Proof. Spring 2014. Sukumar Ghosh. Predicate Logic. Propositional logic has limitations. Consider this:. Is . x. . > 3. a proposition? No, it is a . predicate. . Call it . 2016/11/30. Hongfei. Yan. Multi-Dimensional Arrays or Matrices.  a simple two-dimensional tabular summary. . When . rolling two dice, there are 36 possible . outcomes. a . multi-dimensional table . Satisfiability. Modulo Theories . Frontiers . of . Computational Reasoning . 2009 . –. MSR Cambridge. Leonardo de Moura. Microsoft Research. Symbolic Reasoning. Quantifiers in . Satisfiability. Section 1.4. Section Summary. Predicates . Variables. Quantifiers. Universal Quantifier. Existential Quantifier. Negating Quantifiers. De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Lecture 5. Predicate Logic. Spring 2013. 1. Announcements. Reading assignments. Predicates and Quantifiers. 1.4, 1.5 7. th. Edition. 1.3, 1.4 6. th. . Edition. Hand in Homework 1 now. Homework 2 is available on the website. Exercise 4. Exercise . Translate . these statements into English, where C(x) is “. x. . is a comedian” and F(x) is “x is funny” and the domain . consists . of all people. . . a)∀. x(C(x)→F(x)) . Adapted from Patrick J. Hurley, . A Concise Introduction to Logic. (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008).. Predicate Logic. Before I go on to explain quantifiers, first let me address different ways of symbolizing statements. Previously, we used one letter to symbolize one statement. But there is another way to symbolize certain kinds of statements that are relevant to quantifiers. We can also symbolize statements by symbolizing the predicate and subject separately. .