How can i prove that: Every first-order logic formula can be written in disjunctive normal form? It is easy if the formula does't contain any quantifiers. i think i have to use induction on formulas but again i'm stuck in the non-quantifier-free formulas...
2026-04-02 03:19:09.1775099949
Every first order logic formula can be written in disjunctive normal form
1.2k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in FIRST-ORDER-LOGIC
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Exchanging RAA with double negation: is this valid?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Primitive recursive functions of bounded sum
- Show formula which does not have quantifier elimination in theory of infinite equivalence relations.
- Logical Connectives and Quantifiers
- Is this proof correct? (Proof Theory)
- Is there only a finite number of non-equivalent formulas in the predicate logic?
- How to build a list of all the wfs (well-formed sentences)?
Related Questions in QUANTIFIERS
- Show formula which does not have quantifier elimination in theory of infinite equivalence relations.
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
- Variables, Quantifiers, and Logic
- Express least and greatest fixed point using predicate and quantifiers
- Nested Quantifiers - Excluding Self
- Logical Equivalences Involving Quantifiers
- Translating Propositional Functions
- Valid Set builder notations for simple set.
- Explanation about quantifier sequence ∀x∃y and ∃y∀x
- Contrapositive of a quantified statement
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
First, let's get clear on what we mean by a first-order logic formula that is in disjunctive normal form (DNF). This means that the formula is of the form
$$Q_1 x_1 Q_2 x_2 .... Q_n x_n \ \varphi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$$
where each $Q_i$ is either $\forall$ or $\exists$, and where $\varphi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$ is a quantifier-free truth-functional formula in DNF (I assume it is well-known what it means for a truth-functional formula to be in DNF).
In this form, all the quantifiers are said to be 'in front of' the statement, though note that an individual quantifier may appear after other quantifiers. So this is what I mean when below I talk about 'pulling quantifiers out in front of the statement'.
Now, you can take any first-order logic formula, and go through four steps to get it into disjunctive normal form:
Rewrite all truth-functional operators other than $\land$, $\lor$, and $\neg$ in terms of $\land$, $\lor$, and $\neg$
Change variables in such a way that each different quantifier quantifies a different variable. For example, change
$$\forall x P(x) \lor \exists x Q(x)$$
to
$$\forall x P(x) \lor \exists y Q(y)$$
Quantifier Negation Laws
Where $\varphi$ is any formula:
$\neg \exists x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \forall x \ \neg \varphi$
$\neg \forall x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \exists x \ \neg \varphi$
Prenex Laws
Where $\varphi$ is any formula and where $x$ is not a free variable in $\psi$:
$ \forall x \ \varphi \land \psi \Leftrightarrow \forall x (\varphi \land \psi)$
$ \psi \land \forall x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \forall x (\psi \land \varphi)$
$ \exists x \ \varphi \land \psi \Leftrightarrow \exists x (\varphi \land \psi)$
$ \psi \land \exists x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \exists x (\psi \land \varphi)$
$ \forall x \ \varphi \lor \psi \Leftrightarrow \forall x (\varphi \lor \psi)$
$ \psi \lor \forall x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \forall x (\psi \lor \varphi)$
$ \exists x \ \varphi \lor \psi \Leftrightarrow \exists x (\varphi \lor \psi)$
$ \psi \lor \exists x \ \varphi \Leftrightarrow \exists x (\psi \lor \varphi)$
Notice that because of step 1 the only truth-functional operators left are $\land$, $\lor$, and $\neg$, so there are only three possibilities if a quantifier is not yet in front of the statement:
A. It is being negated ... ok, so apply Quantifier Negation
B. It is a conjunct of a conjunction... ok, so pull it outside the conjunction using Prenex Laws .. which we are guaranteed to be able to apply since we renamed variables, so the variable quantified by the quantifier cannot occur in the other conjunct(s)
C. It is a disjunct of a disjunction: similar to B
This means that if we keep applying these rules, all quantifiers are guaranteed to end up in front of the statement.