System Specifications: Every User Has Access to Exactly One Mailbox

  • Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date
In summary: So, it seems like the existential quantifier is not completely necessary after all.No. If those m0 and m1 are distinct (i.e., m0 ≠ m1), then both of them cannot satisfy A(u,m1) per the second part of the condition, \forall n(n\ne m \rightarrow \neg A(u,n)).Both m0 and m1 could satisfy the equation if m0 and m1 were unique, but that is not the case. So, the existential quantifier is necessary.Yes. If those m0 and m1 are distinct (i.e., m0 ≠ m1), then both of them cannot satisfy A
  • #1
Bashyboy
1,421
5

Homework Statement


Express each of these system specifications using predicates, quantifiers, and logical connectives, if necessary.

a) Every user has access to exactly one mailbox.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



It is typical of my book to not answer questions as given with the unique existential quantifier [itex]\exists ![/itex]. For instance, the answer to the question above is [itex]∀u∃m(A(u, m)∧∀n(n \ne m→¬A(u, n)))[/itex]. However, I am not convinced that this form assures that only one m exists for every u. Isn't it still possible that [itex]m_0[/itex] and[itex]m_1[/itex] are two elements in the domain of the variable that make the statement, implying that there doesn't exists one and only one value of m for every u?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bashyboy said:
For instance, the answer to the question above is [itex]∀u∃m(A(u, m)∧∀n(n \ne m→¬A(u, n)))[/itex]. However, I am not convinced that this form assures that only one m exists for every u. Isn't it still possible that [itex]m_0[/itex] and[itex]m_1[/itex] are two elements in the domain of the variable that make the statement, implying that there doesn't exists one and only one value of m for every u?
No. If those m0 and m1 are distinct (i.e., m0 ≠ m1), then both of them cannot satisfy A(u,m1) per the second part of the condition, [itex]\forall n(n\ne m \rightarrow \neg A(u,n))[/itex].
 
  • #3
Well, why couldn't every n correspond to m0, and then every n also correspond to m1?
 
  • #4
Bashyboy said:
Well, why couldn't every n correspond to m0, and then every n also correspond to m1?

It ranges over EVERYTHING, everything in the universe of discourse (or at least, everything that it can represent).
 
  • #5
Verty, I am not certain how that aids in answering my question.
 
  • #6
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


Express each of these system specifications using predicates, quantifiers, and logical connectives, if necessary.

a) Every user has access to exactly one mailbox.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



It is typical of my book to not answer questions as given with the unique existential quantifier [itex]\exists ![/itex]. For instance, the answer to the question above is [itex]∀u∃m(A(u, m)∧∀n(n \ne m→¬A(u, n)))[/itex]. However, I am not convinced that this form assures that only one m exists for every u. Isn't it still possible that [itex]m_0[/itex] and[itex]m_1[/itex] are two elements in the domain of the variable that make the statement, implying that there doesn't exists one and only one value of m for every u?
You are guaranteed the existence of m0, say, such that [itex]A(u, m_0)∧∀n(n \ne m_0→¬A(u, n)))[/itex]. Suppose m1 (≠m0) satisfies [itex]A(u, m_1)[/itex]. But we know [itex]∀n(n \ne m_0→¬A(u, n)))[/itex]. Since n can be m1, and [itex]A(u, m_1)[/itex], it follows that [itex]¬A(u, m_1)))[/itex].
 

FAQ: System Specifications: Every User Has Access to Exactly One Mailbox

What does the phrase "There Exists Only One" mean?

The phrase "There Exists Only One" refers to the concept that there is only one instance or existence of something. It suggests that there is no other option or alternative.

Is "There Exists Only One" a scientific principle or theory?

No, "There Exists Only One" is not a scientific principle or theory. It is a philosophical concept that has been debated and discussed by philosophers and scientists, but it is not a scientifically proven idea.

Can you give an example of "There Exists Only One" in science?

One example of "There Exists Only One" in science is the principle of conservation of energy. This principle states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, meaning there is only one amount of total energy in the universe, and it cannot be changed.

How does the concept of "There Exists Only One" relate to the idea of uniqueness in science?

The concept of "There Exists Only One" is closely related to the idea of uniqueness in science. It emphasizes the idea that there is only one instance or existence of something, making it unique and unrepeatable.

Are there any criticisms or counterarguments to the concept of "There Exists Only One"?

Yes, there are criticisms and counterarguments to the concept of "There Exists Only One". Some argue that the idea is too limiting and does not account for the possibility of multiple instances or existences of something. Others argue that the concept is too abstract and cannot be proven or disproven.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top