Predicates

and
Quantifiers
SECTION 1.4
Section Summary

 Predicates
 Variables
 Quantifiers
 Universal Quantifier
 Existential Quantifier
 Negating Quantifiers
 De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
 Translating English to Logic
 Logic Programming (optional)
Propositional Logic Not
Enough
 If we have:
“All men are mortal.”
“Socrates is a man.”
 Does it follow that “Socrates is mortal?”
 Can’t be represented in propositional logic.
Need a language that talks about objects, their
properties, and their relations.
 Later we’ll see how to draw inferences.
Introducing Predicate
Logic
 Predicate logic uses the following new features:
 Variables: x, y, z
 Predicates: P(x), M(x)
 Quantifiers (to be covered in a few slides):
 Propositional functions are a generalization of
propositions.
 They contain variables and a predicate, e.g., P(x)
 Variables can be replaced by elements from their
domain.
Propositional Functions
 Propositional functions become propositions (and have
truth values) when their variables are each replaced by a
value from the domain (or bound by a quantifier, as we
will see later).
 The statement P(x) is said to be the value of the
propositional function P at x.
 For example, let P(x) denote “x > 0” and the domain be
the integers. Then:
P(-3) is ?
P(0) is ?
P(3) is ?
 Often the domain is denoted by U. So in this example U is
the integers.
Examples of Propositional
Functions
 Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and U (for all three variables) be
the integers. Find these truth values:
R(2,-1,5)
Solution: ?
R(3,4,7)
Solution: ?
R(x, 3, z)
Solution: ?
 Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the integers. Find
these truth values:
Q(2,-1,3)
Solution: ?
Q(3,4,7)
Solution: ?
Q(x, 3, z)
Solution: ?
Compound Expressions
 Connectives from propositional logic carry over to predicate
logic.
 If P(x) denotes “x > 0,” find these truth values:
P(3) ∨ P(-1) Solution:?
P(3) ∧ P(-1) Solution:?
P(3) → P(-1) Solution:?
P(3) → ¬P(-1) Solution: ?
Expressions with variables are not propositions and therefore do
not have truth values. For example,
P(3) ∧ P(y)
P(x) → P(y)
 When used with quantifiers (to be introduced next), these
expressions (propositional functions) become propositions.
Quantifiers
 We need quantifiers to express the meaning of English
words including all and some:
 “All men are Mortal.”
 “Some cats do not have fur.”
 The two most important quantifiers are:
 Universal Quantifier, “For all,” symbol: 

 Existential Quantifier, “There exists,” symbol: 

 We write as in x P(x) and x P(x).
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for every x in the domain.
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for some x in the domain.
 The quantifiers are said to bind the variable x in these
expressions.
Universal Quantifier

 x P(x) is read as “For all x, P(x)” or “For every x,

P(x)”
Examples:
1) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x) is
false.
2) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is true.
3) If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then  x
P(x) is false.
Existential Quantifier
 x P(x) is read as “For some x, P(x)”, or as “There is
an x such that P(x),” or “For at least one x, P(x).”

Examples:
1. If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x)
is true. It is also true if U is the positive integers.
2. If P(x) denotes “x < 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is false.
3. If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then x
P(x) is true.
Thinking about Quantifiers
 When the domain of discourse is finite, we can think of
quantification as looping through the elements of the domain.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.
 If at every step P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true.
 If at a step P(x) is false, then x P(x) is false and the loop
terminates.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.
 If at some step, P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true and the loop
terminates.
 If the loop ends without finding an x for which P(x) is true, then x
P(x) is false.
 Even if the domains are infinite, we can still think of the
quantifiers this fashion, but the loops will not terminate in some
cases.
Properties of Quantifiers
 The truth value of x P(x) and  x P(x) depend on both the
propositional function P(x) and on the domain U.
 Examples:
1. If U is the positive integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then x P(x) is true, but  x P(x) is false.
2. If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true.
3. If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement
“x > 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true. But if P(x) is
the statement “x < 2”, then both x P(x) and x
P(x) are false.
Precedence of Quantifiers

 The quantifiers  and  have higher

precedence than all the logical operators.
 For example, x P(x) ∨ Q(x) means (x P(x))∨
Q(x)
 x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) means something different.
 Unfortunately, often people write x P(x) ∨ Q(x)
when they mean  x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)).
Translating from English to
Logic
Example 1: Translate the following sentence into
predicate logic: “Every student in this class has
taken a course in Java.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class, define a
propositional function J(x) denoting “x has taken a
course in Java” and translate as x J(x).
Solution 2: But if U is all people, also define a
propositional function S(x) denoting “x is a student
in this class” and translate as x (S(x)→ J(x)).
x (S(x) ∧ J(x)) is not correct. What does it mean?
Equivalences in Predicate
Logic
 Statements involving predicates and
quantifiers are logically equivalent if and only if
they have the same truth value
 for every predicate substituted into these statements
and
 for every domain of discourse used for the variables
in the expressions.
 The notation S ≡T indicates that S and T are
logically equivalent.
 Example: x ¬¬S(x) ≡ x S(x)
Thinking about Quantifiers as
Conjunctions and Disjunctions
 If the domain is finite, a universally quantified proposition is
equivalent to a conjunction of propositions without
quantifiers and an existentially quantified proposition is
equivalent to a disjunction of propositions without
quantifiers.
 If U consists of the integers 1,2, and 3:

 Even if the domains are infinite, you can still think of the
quantifiers in this fashion, but the equivalent expressions
without quantifiers will be infinitely long.
Negating Quantified
Expressions
 Consider x J(x)
“Every student in your class has taken a course in
Java.”
Here J(x) is “x has taken a course in Java” and
the domain is students in your class.
 Negating the original statement gives “It is not the
case that every student in your class has taken
Java.” This implies that “There is a student in your
class who has not taken Java.”
Symbolically ¬x J(x) and x ¬J(x) are equivalent
Negating Quantified
Expressions (continued)
 Now Consider  x J(x)
“There is a student in this class who has taken a
course in Java.”
Where J(x) is “x has taken a course in Java.”
 Negating the original statement gives “It
is not the case that there is a student in
this class who has taken Java.” This
implies that “Every student in this class has
not taken Java”
Symbolically ¬ x J(x) and  x ¬J(x) are
equivalent
De Morgan’s Laws for
Quantifiers
 The rules for negating quantifiers are:

 The reasoning in the table shows that:

 These are important. You will use these.

Translation from English to
Logic
Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Mexico.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x has visited Mexico” and S(x)
denote “x is a student in this class,” and U be all people.
_____________________

2. “Every student in this class has visited Canada or

Mexico.”
Solution: Add C(x) denoting “x has visited Canada.”
x (S(x)→ (M(x)∨C(x)))
___________________________________
More Predicate Calculus
Definitions (optional)
 The scope of a quantifier is the part of an
assertion in which variables are bound by the
quantifier.
Example: x has wide scope

Example: x has narrow scope

 Kenneth H. Rosen (2012)
Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, 7th ed.