Yousef Alqahtani

Homework2

Section 1.4
10

a) x(C(x) ^ D(x) ^ F(x))

b) x((C(x) v D(x)) v F(x)

c) x(C(x) ^ D(x) ^ ~F(x)

d) ⁓ x[C(x) ˄ D(x) ˄ F(x)]

e) x[C(x) ˄ D(x) ˄ F(x)]

14

a) x^3 = -1 where we can see that the value for x = 1. The statement x(x^3 = -1)
is true as it satisfies for all real numbers.
b) x (x^4 < x^2) this condition is true for the numbers within the domain (0, 1)
so the statement is true.
c) x ((-x)^2 = x^2) consider the example: (-4)^2 = 16 and 4^2 = 16 so the
statement is true
d) Vx (2X > x) this condition is not true for negative numbers and so the
statement is false.

18
a) x P(x), for the domain {-2,-1,0, 1, 2} the proposition is same as the disjunction
so

x P(x) = P(-2) v P(-1) v P(0) v P(1) v P(2)

b) this proposition is same as the conjunction and is written as P(-2) ˄ P(-1) ˄ P(0) ˄ P(1) ˄ P(2)
c) x P(x) = [ P(-2) ˄ P(-1) ˄ P(0) ˄ P(1) ˄ P(2)]
d) Applying De Morgan’s law to the proposition gives us P(-2) v P(-1) v P(0) v P(1) v P(2)
e) The proposition is same as negation of x P(x) and written as
(P(-2) v P(-1) v P(0) v P(1) v P(2))

f) It can be written as ̚ (P(-2) ˄ P(-1) ˄ P(0) ˄ P(1) ˄ P(2))

24
a) Let A(x) be the propositional value of “x is in your class”
∀ x B(x) and ∀ x (A(x) →B(x)), where B(x) is “x has a cellular phone”
b) x M(x) and x (A(x) ⁓ M(x)), where M(x) is “x has seen a foreign movie”
c) x N(x) and x (A(x) ˄ N(x)) where N(x) is “x can swim”
d) ∀ x P(x) and ∀ x (A(x) → P(x)), where P(x) is “x can solve quadratic equations”

36
a) ∀ x (x^2 ≠ x): counter example is 1, -1.
b) ∀ x (x^2 ≠ 2): counter example is x = √2, -√2.
c) ∀ x (|x|>0): counter example cannot be made as the modulus of any number is always
positive and is greater than 0.
60
a) All clear explanation are satisfactory ∀ x [P(x) → Q(x)]
b) Same excuses are unsatisfactory x [R(x) →⁓Q(x)]
c) Same excuses are not clear explanation x [R(x) →⁓ P(x)]
d) Yes, if excuses are clear then it should be satisfactory.

Section 1.5
8. Let S(x) be student, C(x) be contestant, J(x) is student who has been on both shows, T(x) is tv
quiz show
a) x, S(x) → C(x) ˄ T(x).
b) ̚ x, S(x) → C(x) ˄ T(x).
c) x, S(x) → C(x) ˄ J(x).
d) ∀ x, T(x) → C(x).
e) 2x, S(x) → C(x) ˄ J(x).

22. There is a positive integer that is not the sum of three squares.
Using predicates, quantifiers, logical operators, mathematical operators we get the following
statement: x (x > 0 ˄ a b c (x = a^2 + b^2 + c^2)).
28.
a) The statement is true.
b) The statement is false.
c) The statement is true.
d) The statement is false.
e) The statement is true.
f) The statement is false.
g) The statement is true.
h) The statement is false.
i) The statement is true.
j) The statement is true.

34. The statement ∀x ∀y[ (x ≠ y) → ∀z((z=x)V(z=y))] can be written as

∀x ∀y ∀z [ ((z ≠ x)^(z ≠ y))→(x=y)].
The first statement states that “for all x, for all y, for all z, if x is not equal to y then z is either x
or y”. The second statement states that “for all x, for all y, for all z, if z is not equal to x and z is
not equal to y then x and y are equal.” We can conclude that the given statement can be true only
if “there exist exactly two different numbers in the given domain.”

40.
a) ∀x y (x = 1/y): counter example is if x = 1 and y = 2 then x = 1/y does not hold
true.

b) ∀x y (y^2 – x < 100): counter example is if y = 12, x = 2 then y^2 – x = 140.

c) ∀x∀y (x^2 ≠ y^3): counter example is if x = 8, y =4.

Section 1.6
10
a) Let the premise be h: I play hockey, s: I’m sore, w: I use the whirlpool. So, based on the
statements we can say h → s, s → w, -w. From the premise, -w and s → w, from these we
get -s. h → s is another premise and from that we get a hypothetical one as h → w which
leads to -h. So “I did not play hockey.
b) Let the premise be W(x) → I work on x, S(x) → Its sunny on x, P(x) → Its partly sunny
on x. In symbolic form, it can be shown as ∀x (W(x) → (S(x) v P(x)))
W(Monday) v W(Friday). -S(Tuesday), -P(Friday). From the premise we get
W(Monday) → (S(Monday) v P(Monday)), W(Friday) → (S(Friday) v P(Friday)). From
this we can deduce W(Friday) → S(Friday) from which we get: S(Monday) v P(Monday)
 v S(Friday) v P(Friday). So we conclude that “ it was either sunny or partly sunny on
Monday or sunny on Friday”.
c) From the statement we get I(x): x is an insect, D(x): x is a dragonfly, L(x): x has legs,
S(x): x is a spider, E (x, y): x eats y. From the three premises we can deduce the following
I(c) → L(c), D(c) → L(c), ∀x [D(x) → L(x)], S(c) → -L(c), -L(c) →I(c), S(c) → -I(c), ∀x
[S(x) → -I(x)].
The conclusion is “all spiders are not insects or spiders are not insects”.
d) Let S(x): x is a student, I(x): x has internet account. From the premise we can see that
∀x( S(x) → I(x)) and S(Homer) → I(Homer), -I(Homer), -S(Homer). We conclude that
“Homer is not a student”.
e) From the statements, H(x): x is healthy to eat, G(x): x tastes good, E(x): eat x. We can
infer the following,: H(tofu) →-G(tofu), -G(tofu), E(c) ↔ G(c), H(c) →-G(c), -E(c) ↔
-G(c), H(c) →-E(c), ∀x (H(x) →-E(x)). Which translates to “you do not eat healthy
food”.
f) From the statements, we see: d: I am dreaming, h: I am hallucinating, e: I see elephants
running down the road. We see -d is a premise, d v h is a premise, h → e is a premise, we
get e. We conclude as “ I see elephants running down the road”.
16
a) Let P(x): x is enrolled in university, N(x): x lived in dorms. So, ∀x (P(x) → N(x)) is a
universal premise and P(Mia) → N(Mia) →-N(Mia), -P(Mia) is not mentioned so we can
conclude that “Mia is not enrolled in the university”. It is valid
b) Let P(x): x is a convertible car, N(x): x is fun to ride. So, ∀x (P(x) → N(x)), -P(Issacs’s
car), hence -N(Issacs’s car). It is invalid.
c) Let P(x): x is a action movie, N(x): x is eight men out. So, ∀x (P(x) → N(x)) is universal
premise and P(Eight men out), hence it is valid.
d) Let P(x): x is a lobsterman, N(x): x is a dozen traps, now ∀x (P(x) → N(x)), P(Hamilton)
→ N(Hamilton), P(Hamilton), N(Hamilton). Hence it is valid.

28. Given ∀x((-P(x))˄Q(x)) → R(x).

((-P(a))˄Q(a)) → R(a). for any ‘a’ in the domain
-R(a) v- (-P(a)˄Q(a)). Law of implication
(-R(a) v P(a)) v -Q(a). Associative law.
Given ∀x (P(x) v Q(x))
(P(a) v Q(a)). For any ‘a’ in the domain.
(-R(a) v P(a)) v P(a). law of resolution
-R(a) v (P(a) v P(a)). Associative law
-R(a) v P(a). Idempotent law
 R(a) → P(a). Law of implication
∀x (-R(x)) → P(x). Universal generalization
Hence proved.

34. Let L: logic is difficult, M: math is easy, S: many students like logic.
a) This is equal to -M →- S. This is a valid syllogism
b) This is equal to -S → M, it is not a valid syllogism of the statements.
c) This is equal to -S v -L = S → -L. This is negative of the above premise and hence invalid.
d) This is equal to L v -S = S → L. This is one of the premises and hence valid.
e) This is equal to L →(-(S v L)) which is valid as -S v L can be interpreted as the implication
S → L, hence it is valid.

Section 1.7
14. what does it mean for x to be rational?

doesn't it mean x = a/b, where a and b are integers, and b ≠ 0

now if x ≠ 0, then a ≠ 0, so we may form the fraction y = b/a.

now, all that's left to do is show y = 1/x. how can we do that?

by seeing if xy = 1. so let's do that:

xy = (a/b)(b/a) = (ab)/(ab) = 1.

18
a) By contraposition of the statement we get p → q is -q → -p. Assuming n to be odd then
n = 2k+ 1, for some integer k. Substituting this value we get 3n +2 = 3(2k +1) +2 = 6k +5
= 6k + 4 +1= 2k(3 +2) +1 which is odd so 3n + 2 is odd and n is odd. Hence if 3n+ 2 is
even then n is also even.
b) By contradiction suppose 3n+2 is even and n is odd, since 3n is even but n is odd then 3n
has to be odd as odd * odd is odd. And hence n has to be even.
24. Choose 25 days such that no more than 2 days fall on the same day of the week. This can be
done as 2*7 = 14 days. This contradicts the assumption that there we choose 25 days so the
initial assumption is false. So if we choose 25 days at least 3 of them will fall on the same day of
the week.

Section 1.8
20. 0 ≤ ↋ ≤ 1.
Suppose the integer is given by x then n =x, ↋ =0, it is seen that the only combination possible is
n =x, ↋ =0. The other values are not possible as n >x and the integer that is previous and next is
one unit away from the integer. This cannot be covered by ↋ which implies ↋> 1.
Suppose x is not an integer, then to obtain an integer, the value is rounded off and the integer is
obtained as n. let ↋ = n -x.
As the above value of ↋ is only possible one that will be possible to use with n which means that ↋
has to be lower than 1. Hence proved.
22. let x be the non-zero real number
(x^2 -1/x)^2 ≥ 0.
= x^2 + 1/x^2 -2
=> x^2 + 1/x^2 -2 ≥ 0
=> x^2 + 1/x^2 ≥ 2.
Hence x is a non-zero real number.