EECS 203: Discrete Mathematics

Fall 2019
Discussion 2 Notes
1 Definitions
• Predicate:

• Universal quantifier:

• Existential quantifier:

• Nested Quantifiers:

• DeMorgan’s Laws for Quantifiers:

• Proof by Natural Deduction:

Solution:

• Predicate: A sentence or mathematical expression whose truth value depends

on a parameter, and becomes a proposition when the parameter is specified. For
example, ”x > 10” is a predicate that depends on the parameter x.

• Universal quantifier: Denoted by ∀ and translated as ”for all”, it specifies that

the following propositional function is true for all possible parameters in the do-
main.

• Existential quantifier: Denoted by ∃ and translated as ”there exists”, it specifies

that the following propositional function is true for at least one parameter in the
domain.

• Nested Quantifiers: A nested quantifier is a a quantifier that involves the use

of two or more quantifiers (∀ or ∃) to quantify a compound proposition. In nested
quantifiers’ order matters, e.g. ∀x∃yP (x, y) is different from ∃y∀xP (x, y).

• DeMorgan’s Laws for Quantifiers: ¬∀xP (x) ≡ ∃x¬P (x). ¬∃xP (x) ≡ ∀x¬P (x)

1
 • Proof by Natural Deduction: Structured proof that uses only the introduction
and elimination rules of natural deduction. There are 5 introduction rules and 7
elimination rules for propositional logic. Predicate logic includes an additional 2 in-
troduction rules and 2 elimination rules. A natural deduction proof is a structured,
line-by-line application of the introduction and elimination rules that leads from
the given premise(s) to the desired conclusion. Each line of a natural deduction
proof should include a justification (e.g., which rule was applied to which lines).

2 Exercises
1. Exercise 1.4.12
Let Q(x) be the statement “x + 1 > 2x”. If the domain consists of all integers, what are
these truth values?
a) Q(0)
b) Q(−1)
c) Q(1)
d) ∃xQ(x)
e) ∀xQ(x)
f) ∃x¬Q(x)
g) ∀x¬Q(x)

Solution:

a) True. Substitute x = 0 into the predicate, and check if the the inequality holds.

b) True. Substitute x = −1 into the predicate, and check if the the inequality holds.

c) False.Substitute x = 1 into the predicate, and check if the the inequality holds. In
this case, the inequality does not hold.

d) True. To prove an exists statement is true, we just need to find one element of
the domain for which the statement holds. Let’s consider x = −10. Q(−10) is the
statement “−10 + 1 > 2(−10)”. This is true since −10 + 1 = −11 > −20 = 2(−10).
There are many other values of x for which the statement holds as well (any integer
less than 1 will work).

2
 e) False. To prove a for all statement is true, we need to show Q(x) is true for all x in
the domain. Or we could prove it is false by finding a counterexample. In this case,
we can provide a counterexample x = 1. Now we have proved this statement is false.

f) True. To prove this statement is true, we only need to find one example where Q(x)
is false. We have found this example in part (c).

g) False. To prove this to be false, we only need one example to show Q(x) is true, and
we can use examples such as x = 0 or x = −1.

2. Exercise 1.4.25
Let P (x) be “x is perfect”; let F (x) be “x is your friend”; and let the domain (universe of
discourse) be all people. Translate each of these statements into logical expressions using
predicates, quantifiers, and logical connectives.

a) No one is perfect.

b) Not everyone is perfect.

c) All your friends are perfect.

d) At least one of your friends is perfect

e) Everyone is your friend and is perfect.

f) Not everybody is your friend or someone is not perfect.

Solution: Let P (x) be “x is perfect”; let F (x) be “x is your friend”; and let the domain
(universe of discourse) be all people.

a) This means that everyone has the property of being not perfect: ∀x¬P (x). Alterna-
tively, we can write this as ¬∃xP (x), which says that there does not exist a person
who is perfect.

b) This is just the negation of “Everyone is perfect”: ¬∀xP (x). Alternatively we could
write ∃x¬P (x) (i.e. there exists someone who is not perfect).

c) If someone is your friend, then that person is perfect: ∀x(F (x) → P (x)). Note the
use of conditional statement with universal quantifiers.

d) We do not have to rule out your having more than one perfect friend. Thus we have
simply ∃x(F (x) ∧ P (x)). Note the use of conjunction with existential quantifiers.

3
 e) The expression is ∀x(F (x) ∧ P (x)). Note that here we did use a conjunction with
the universal quantifier, but the sentence is not natural (who could claim this?).
Because ∀ distributes over ∧, we can also split up the expression into two quantified
statements and write (∀xF (x)) ∧ (∀xP (x)). To avoid confusion, one could instead
write (∀xF (x)) ∧ (∀yP (y)), where the domain of both x and y is all people.

f) This is a disjunction. The expression is (¬∀xF (x)) ∨ (∃x¬P (x)). Again, to avoid
confusion, one could instead write (¬∀xF (x)) ∨ (∃y¬P (y)), where the domain of both
x and y is all people.

3. Exercise 1.4.40
Translate these system specifications into English where the predicate S(x, y) is “x is in
state y” and where the domain for x and y consists of all systems and all possible states,
respectively.

a) ∃xS(x, open)

b) ∀x(S(x, malfunctioning) ∨ S(x, diagnostic))

c) ∃xS(x, open) ∨ ∃xS(x, diagnostic)

d) ∃x¬S(x, available)

e) ∀x¬S(x, working)

Solution:

a) There is a system that is open.

b) Every system is either malfunctioning or in a diagnostic state.

c) Some system is open, or some system is in a diagnostic state.

d) Some system is unavailable.

e) No system is working. (Note: “Not every system is working” is NOT a valid answer,
as this would allow some systems to be working.)

4
4. Exercise 1.5.4
Let P(x, y) be the statement “Student x has taken class y,” where the domain for x consists
of all students in your class and for y consists of all computer science courses at your school.
Express each of these quantifications in English.

a) ∃x∃yP (x, y)

b) ∃x∀yP (x, y)

c) ∀x∃yP (x, y)

d) ∃y∀xP (x, y)

e) ∀y∃xP (x, y)

f) ∀x∀yP (x, y)

Solution:

a) There is a student in your class has taken a computer science course [at your school].

b) There is a student in your class who has taken every computer science course.

c) Every student in your class has taken at least one computer science course.

d) There is a computer science course that every student in your class has taken.

e) Every computer science course has been taken by at least one student in your class.

f) Every student in your class has taken every computer science course.

5. Exercise 1.5.23
Express each of these mathematical statements using predicates, quantifiers, logical connec-
tives, and mathematical operators.

a) The product of two negative real numbers is positive.

b) The difference of a real number and itself is zero.

c) Every positive real number has exactly two square roots.

d) A negative real number does not have a square root that is a real number.

5
 Solution: Let the domain of all variables be the real numbers.

a) ∀x∀y[(x < 0) ∧ (y < 0) → (xy > 0)]

b) ∀x(x − x = 0)

c) ∀x∃a∃b {a 6= b ∧ ∀c [c2 = x ⇐⇒ (c = a ∨ c = b)]}

d) ∀x[(x < 0) → ¬∃y(x = y 2 )]. Equivalently ∀x¬[(x < 0) ∧ (∃y(x = y 2 ))], or ¬∃x[(x <
0) ∧ (∃y(x = y 2 ))].

6. Exercise 1.5.31
Express the negations of each of these statements.
a) ∀x∃y∀zT (x, y, z)
b) ∀x∃yP (x, y) ∨ ∀x∃yQ(x, y)
c) ∀x∃y(P (x, y) ∧ ∃zR(x, y, z))
d) ∀x∃y(P (x, y) → Q(x, y))

Solution:
a)

¬∀x∃y∀zT (x, y, z) ≡ ∃x¬∃y∀zT (x, y, z)

≡ ∃x∀y¬∀zT (x, y, z)
≡ ∃x∀y∃z¬T (x, y, z)

b)

¬(∀x∃yP (x, y) ∨ ∀x∃yQ(x, y)) ≡ ¬∀x∃yP (x, y) ∧ ¬∀x∃yQ(x, y)

≡ ∃x¬∃yP (x, y) ∧ ∃x¬∃yQ(x, y)
≡ ∃x∀y¬P (x, y) ∧ ∃x∀y¬Q(x, y)

c)

¬∀x∃y(P (x, y) ∧ ∃zR(x, y, z)) ≡ ∃x¬∃y(P (x, y) ∧ ∃zR(x, y, z))

≡ ∃x∀y¬(P (x, y) ∧ ∃zR(x, y, z))
≡ ∃x∀y(¬P (x, y) ∨ ¬∃zR(x, y, z))
≡ ∃x∀y(¬P (x, y) ∨ ∀z¬R(x, y, z))

6
 d)

¬∀x∃y(P (x, y) → Q(x, y)) ≡ ∃x¬∃y(P (x, y) → Q(x, y))

≡ ∃x∀y¬(P (x, y) → Q(x, y))
≡ ∃x∀y(P (x, y) ∧ ¬Q(x, y))

7. Not in Book 1
Using ONLY Natural Deduction, prove

(p → q) ∨ q
p→q

Solution:

 (p → q) ∨ q premise
 p Assumption
 p→q Assumption
 q → −elim 3, 2
 q Assumption
 q ∨ − elim 1, 3 − 4, 5
 p→q → −intro 2 − 6

Alternate solution:

 (p → q) ∨ q premise
 p→q assumption
 q assumption
 p assumption
 q line 3
 p→q → −intro, 4 − 5
 p→q ∨−elim 1, 2, 3 − 6