Antecedent and subsequent of an implication logic

388 Views Asked by At

I'm doing discrete math problems in relation to the predicate logic and I'm having problems when figuring out what the antecedent and subsequent implication is.

Most of them if I take them out the first time, but then I start that if I could be this way or the other and I messed up. I have

  • help: $h (X, Y)$
  • they live in the house of: $v (X)$
  • work: $w (X, Y)$
  • friends: $f (X, Y)$

All those who help Juan live in Manolo's house. $(\forall X) h(X,j) \to v(X) $

Antonio helps everyone he works with. $(\forall X) w(a,X) \to h(a,X) $

All of Carlos' friends work with Juan. $(\forall X) f(X,j) \to w(X,c) $

Antonio is Carlos's friend. $f(a,c)$

What I sometimes confuse is the way in which the phrase is given. I confuse in this case the second and the third, that I do not know if the meaning of the implication is well done or wrong

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: does there have to be some direct mechanism to detect which is the antecedent and the consequent directly? I always messed up. I already made a response a while ago but I still understand it very well, I do not know if someone has some trick to recognize it better.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

First of all, the 'lives in the house of' needs to be 2-place relation:

$v(X,Y): X$ lives in the house of $Y$

Second, use parentheses to indicate the scope of the quantifiers. For example, for the first one, if you do:

$$(\forall X) h(X,j) \rightarrow v(X,m)$$

then the $X$ in $v(X,m)$ is no within the scope of the quantifier. So, instead do:

$$(\forall X) (h(X,j) \rightarrow v(X,m))$$

Similarly, for the second one, you should do:

$$(\forall X) (w(a,X) \rightarrow h(a,X))$$

OK, for the third one you did indeed mix things up: we're talking about friends of Carlos, i.e. you need to use $f(X,c)$, and we're talking about working woith Juan, so you need $w(X,j)$. So, you get:

$$(\forall X) (f(X,c) \rightarrow w(X,j))$$