Understanding interpretation of a predicate

42 Views Asked by At

This exercise is confusing me. Let $S(x,y,z):= $ $z$ is the child of $x$ and $y$, where $x$ is the mother and $y$ is the father. Express the following sentence in predicate logic using the predicate $S(x,y,z)$:

"There exist a being thats is a father or a mother of another being" $(1)$

My first thought was to write: \begin{equation} \exists x\exists y\exists z \quad S(x,y,z)\quad(2) \end{equation} But then I realized that if there exists a being that only has a father and no being has a mother(I know it sounds stupid), then $(1)$ is true but not $(2)$.

Now I was thinking, what if we interpret the domain as $x\in B, y\in \emptyset, z\in B$, where $B$ is the set of beings and then write

$$\exists x\exists y\exists z \quad S(x,y,z)\lor S(y,x,z)$$

Is this correct? Or am I confusing the meaning of logical interpretation?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On

"There exist a being that's is a father or a mother of another being"

$$∃x~∃y~∃z~~S(x,y,z)∨S(y,x,z)$$

Yes, you will clearly need a witness in either parental position, a witness in the child position, and an implicit witness in the remaining position.

Of course, you can simplify this to just: $$\exists x~\exists y~\exists z~S(x,y,z)$$

They are equivalent.


But then I realized that if there exists a being that only has a father and no being has a mother(I know it sounds stupid), then (1) is true but not (2).

It is not stupid, you simply cannot express it with the given predicate because it requires three terms.