Tableau Proof for All x P(x) V Q(x) $\supset$ Exists y P(y) V Exists z Q(z)

In summary, the conversation discusses how to do a tableau proof of a statement involving quantifiers and disjunctions. The approach of restating the statement was recommended to avoid confusion over bound variables. The approach is valid and can be simplified using logical equivalences.
  • #1
gnome
1,041
1
To do a tableau proof of this statement:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists x)(P(x) \vee (\exists x)(Q(x)] [/tex]
I started out by restating it as follows:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists y)(P(y) \vee (\exists z)(Q(z)] [/tex]
to avoid confusion over what's bound to what (and when).

Is my approach:
valid?
invalid?
recommended?
not?
a good idea?
not?
some other adjective (or expletive)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
gnome said:
To do a tableau proof of this statement:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists x)(P(x) \vee (\exists x)(Q(x)] [/tex]
I started out by restating it as follows:
[tex](\forall x) [P(x) \vee Q(x)] \supset [(\exists y)(P(y) \vee (\exists z)(Q(z)] [/tex]
to avoid confusion over what's bound to what (and when).

Is my approach:
valid?
invalid?
recommended?
not?
a good idea?
not?
some other adjective (or expletive)?

Your approach is correct.

1. Ey(P(y) v EzQ(z)) <-> (EyP(y) v EzQ(z)),

by, Ey(P(y) v p) <-> (EyP(y) v p).

2. (EyP(y) v EzQ(z)) <-> (ExP(x) v ExQ(x)),

by: EyP(y) <-> ExP(x), EzQ(z) <-> ExQ(x).

3. Ey(P(y) v EzQ(z)) <-> (ExP(x) v ExQ(x)),

by:1, 2, ((p <-> q) & (q <-> r)) -> (p <-> r).
 
  • #3
Thank you.
 

FAQ: Tableau Proof for All x P(x) V Q(x) $\supset$ Exists y P(y) V Exists z Q(z)

What is a Tableau Proof?

A Tableau Proof is a method used in mathematical logic to demonstrate the validity or satisfiability of a logical formula. It involves constructing a tree-like structure to systematically explore all possible cases and determine if the formula is true or false.

What is the significance of the formula "P(x) V Q(x) $\supset$ Exists y P(y) V Exists z Q(z)"?

This formula represents a logical statement that states that if either P(x) or Q(x) is true for all values of x, then there exists at least one y such that P(y) is true or at least one z such that Q(z) is true. It is commonly used in proofs involving quantifiers.

How is a Tableau Proof constructed for this formula?

A Tableau Proof for this formula would involve creating a tree where each branch represents a possible case for the truth values of P(x) and Q(x). The tree would be expanded until either a contradiction is found or all possible cases have been explored. If a contradiction is found, the formula is false. If all cases lead to a closed branch, the formula is true.

Is this formula always true?

No, this formula is not always true. It depends on the truth values of P(x) and Q(x) for all values of x. If there exists at least one value of x where both P(x) and Q(x) are false, then the formula is false. However, if at least one of P(x) or Q(x) is true for all values of x, then the formula is true.

Can a Tableau Proof be used to prove other types of logical statements?

Yes, a Tableau Proof can be used to prove other types of logical statements, such as conjunctions, disjunctions, and implications. It is a versatile method that can be used to prove the validity of various logical formulas.

Back
Top