A First order logic : Predicates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on interpreting the sentence "Each teacher has given a form to each student" within first-order predicate logic. Two primary interpretations are identified: one where every teacher gives a form to every student, resulting in multiple forms received by students, and another where each student receives a form from a different teacher, requiring equal numbers of teachers and students. The participants explore the logical dependencies of the terms involved, suggesting that the form's relationship can vary based on the perspective of either the teacher or the student. They emphasize the importance of experimenting with different logical frameworks and predicates to clarify the sentence's meaning. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of translating natural language into formal logic.
radouani
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a small problem with the first order logic, in particular, predicate logic

Let us take this sentence as an example:

Each teacher has given a form to each student.

From this sentence, can we have different reading?

This is my try to solve such problem, I did not know if this is the answer for such question:

Every Teacher has given a form to each Student.

(∀x)Teacher(x)^(∀y) Student(y)^(∃z)Form(z)^Give(x,y,z)

If X is a Student then he has received a form from a teacher

Student(x)→(∃y) Teacher(y)^(∃z)Form(z)^Give(x,y,z)

If X is a Teacher then he has gave a from for all his students

Teacher(x)→(∀y) Student(y)^(∃z)Form(z)^Give(x,y,z)

If X is a form then a teacher gave it to all student.

Form(x)→(∀y) Employer(y)^(∃z)Teacher(z)^Give(x,y,z)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are really only two reasonable interpretations of the natural language sentence:

(1) Every teacher has given a form to every student, so that if there are N teachers then every student has received N forms

or

(2) Every student has received a form from a different teacher. For this to work, the number of teachers must be the same as the number of students.

I think (1) sounds more plausible.
radouani said:
(∀x)Teacher(x)^(∀y) Student(y)^(∃z)Form(z)^Give(x,y,z)
This says: everybody is a teacher and everybody is also a student and there is a single form that every person has given to every other person. That doesn't match either of the possible interpretations.
 
Thanks for your reply.

I think that the form is in logical dependency, either of student, either of teacher, or both, so we can find three other readings, right?

And How can I transform this sentence then?

Each teacher has given a form to each student.
 
Last edited:
This is more a rule of thumb than an actual full answer. Try different (Logical) worlds/universes, different predicates and see if you get what you would expect to get. Then tinkering may hopefully lead you to the right set up.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top