You are on page 1of 2

# 18.1.

## Write out a complete description of a first-order structure M that would represent

Mary Ellen's World. This has been done above except for the packaging into a single
function.
DM = {b1, b2, b3, b4}
CubeM = {b1, b2, b3}
LargerM = {b3,b2, b3,b1, b3,b4, b2,b1, b2,b4}
=M = {b1,b1, b2,b2, b3,b3, b4,b4}
cM = b 1
18.2. (Simon says) Open Mary Ellen's World. The structure M that we have used to
model this world with respect to the sublanguage involving only Cube, Larger, and c, is
also a good model of many other worlds. What follows is a list of proposed changes to
the world. Some of them are allowable changes, in that if you make the change, the
model M still represents the world with respect to this language. Other changes are not.
Make the allowable changes, but not the others.
1. Move everything back one row.
2. Interchange the position of the tetrahedron and the large cube.
3. Make the tetrahedron a dodecahedron.
4. Make the large cube a dodecahedron.
5. Make the tetrahedron (or what was the tetrahedron, if you have changed it) large.
6. Add a cube to the world.
7. Add a dodecahedron to the world.
Now open Mary Ellen's Sentences. Check to see that all these sentences are true in the
world you
have built. If they are not, you have made some unallowable changes. Submit your
modied
world.
18.3. In the text we modeled Mary Ellen's World with respect to one sublanguage of
Tarski's World. How would our structure have to be modified if we added the following
to the language: Tet, Dodec, Between? That is, describe the first-order structure that
would represent Mary Ellen's World, in its original state, for this expanded language.
[Hint: One of your extensions will be the empty set.]
18.4 Consider a first-order language with one binary predicate Outgrabe. Suppose for
some reason we are interested in first-order structures M for this language which have
the particular domain {Alice; Mad Hatter}. List all the sets of ordered pairs that could
serve as the extension of the symbol Outgrabe. How many would there be if the
18.5. In Section 14.4 (page 387) we promised to show how to make the semantics of
generalized quantifiers rigorous. How could we extend the notion of a first-order
structure to accommodate the addition of a generalized quantifier Q? Intuitively, as we
have seen, a sentence like Qx (A(x); B(x)) asserts that a certain binary relation Q holds
between the set A of things that satisfy A(x) and the set B that satisfies B(x) in M. Thus,
the natural way to interpret them is by means of a binary relation on P(DM). What
quantifier corresponds to the each of the following binary relations on sets?
1. x (A(x)B(x))
2. x (A(x)B(x))
3. x (A(x)B(x))

18.6
.?
While we can't say with precision exactly which binary relation a speaker might have in
mind
with the use of some quantiers, like many, we can still use this framework to illustrate
the
nature of the logical properties like conservativity, monotonicity, and so forth discussed
in
Section 14.5. Each of the following properties of binary relations Q on subsets of D
correspond
to a property of quantiers. Identify them.
1. Q(A;B) if and only if Q(A;A \ B)
2. If Q(A;B) and A A0 then Q(A0;B)
3. If Q(A;B) and A0 A then Q(A0;B)
4. If Q(A;B) and B0 B then Q(A;B0)
5. If Q(A;B) and B B0 then Q(A;B0)