4.

1
Identity in Logic

In module 3, we learned P L , a relatively rich language that allows us to talk about objects and their properties. Here
we will further enrich it by introducing the identity symbol =.

§ 1 Limitation of PL

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Consider this sentence:

Pavel owes money to everyone else.

Let the UD be people; this will allow us to translate everyone'' as a universal quanti er. Let Oxy mean x owes money to
y ,'' and let p mean Pavel. Now we can symbolize sentence ef{else1} as ∀xOpx. Unfortunately, this translation has

some odd consequences. It says that Pavel owes money to every member of the UD, including Pavel; it entails that
Pavel owes money to himself. However, sentence ef{else1} does not say that Pavel owes money to himself; he owes
money to everyone else. This is a problem, because ∀xOpx is the best translation we can give of this sentence into
QL.

The solution is to add another symbol to QL. The symbol = is a two-place predicate. Since it has a special logical
meaning, we write it a bit differently: For two terms t1 and t2 , t1 = t2 is an atomic formula.

The predicate x = y means x is identical to y .'' This does not mean merely that x and y are indistinguishable or that
all of the same predicates are true of them. Rather, it means that x and y are the very same thing.

When we write x ≠ y , we mean that x and y are not identical. There is no reason to introduce this as an additional
predicate. Instead, x ≠ y is an abbreviation of ¬x = y . ¬x = y might look a bit funny, and you might be tempted to
write ¬(x = y) , but that's technically incorrect. Keep in mind that '=' is really just a special symbol for a predicate -
other syntactical rules governing predicates apply to it as well. Just as we don't write ¬(I xy) , we also don't add

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 parentheses to ¬x = y . Also don't forget that the negation is not attached to the the variables - neither the variables
('x' and 'y') nor the identity symbol '=' is a by itself a statement in QL.

Now suppose we want to symbolize this sentence:

Pavel is Mister Checkov.

Let the constant c mean Mister Checkov. The sentence above can be symbolized as p = c . This means that the
constants p and c both refer to the same guy.

This is all well and good, but how does it help with sentence ' Pavel owes money to everyone else.'? That sentence can
be paraphrased as, Everyone who is not Pavel is owed money by Pavel.'' This is a sentence structure we already know
how to symbolize: For all x, if x is not Pavel, then x is owed money by Pavel.'' In QL with identity, this becomes
∀x(x ≠ p → Opx) .

In addition to sentences that use the word else,'' identity will be helpful when symbolizing some sentences that contain
the words besides'' and only.'' Consider these examples:

No one besides Pavel owes money to Hikaru

Only Pavel owes Hikaru money.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 We add the constant h, which means Hikaru.

'No one besides Pavel owes money to Hikaru.' can be paraphrased as, No one who is not Pavel owes money to Hikaru.''
This can be translated as ¬∃x(x ≠ p ∧ Oxh) .

'Only Pavel owes Hikaru money.' can be paraphrased as, Pavel owes Hikaru and no one besides Pavel owes Hikaru
money.'' We have already translated one of the conjuncts, and the other is straightforward. The sentence becomes
Oph ∧ ¬∃x(x ≠ p ∧ Oxh) .

§ 2 Expressing Speci c Quantities in Logic

We can also use identity to say how many things there are of a particular kind. For example, consider these sentences:

1. There is at least one apple on the table.

2. There are at least two apples on the table.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 3. There are at least three apples on the table.

Let UD: {x| x is on the table}, which reads the domain of discourse is the set that includes 'all x is such that x is on the
table', and let Ax mean x is an apple.''

Sentence 1 does not require identity. It can be translated adequately as ∃xAx : There is some apple on the table---
perhaps many, but at least one.

It might be tempting to also translate sentence 2 without identity. Yet consider the sentence ∃x∃y(Ax ∧ Ay). It
means that there is some apple x in the UD and some apple y in the UD. Since nothing precludes x and y from picking
out the same member of the UD, this would be true even if there were only one apple. In order to make sure that there
are two different apples, we need an identity predicate. Sentence 2 needs to say that the two apples that exist are not
identical, so it can be translated as ∃x∃y(Ax ∧ Ay ∧ x ≠ y) .

Sentence 3 requires talking about three different apples. It can be translated as

∃x∃y∃z(Ax ∧ Ay ∧ Az ∧ x ≠ y ∧ y ≠ z ∧ x ≠ z) .

Continuing in this way, we could translate There are at least n apples on the table.'' for any n.

Now consider these sentences

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 A. There is at most one apple on the table.

B. There are at most two apples on the table.

Sentence A can be paraphrased as, It is not the case that there are at least two apples on the table.'' This is just the
negation of sentence B:

¬∃x∃y(Ax ∧ Ay ∧ x ≠ y)

Sentence A can also be approached in another way. It means that any apples that there are on the table must be the
selfsame apple, so it can be translated as ∀x∀y[(Ax ∧ Ay) → x = y] . The two translations are logically equivalent,
so both are correct.

In a similar way, sentence B can be translated in two equivalent ways. It can be paraphrased as, It is not the case that
there are three or more distinct apples'', so it can be translated as the negation of sentence 3. Using universal
quanti ers, it can also be translated as

∀x∀y∀z[(Ax ∧ Ay ∧ Az) → (x = y ∨ x = z ∨ y = z)].

The examples above are sentences about apples, but the logical structure of the sentences translates mathematical
inequalities like a ≥ 3 , a ≤ 2 , and so on. We also want to be able to translate statements of equality which say exactly
how many things there are. For example:

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 C. There is exactly one apple on the table.

D. There are exactly two apples on the table.

Sentence C can be paraphrased as, There is at least one apple on the table, and there is at most one apple on the
table.'' This is just the conjunction of sentence 1 and sentence A ∃xAx ∧ ∀x∀y[(Ax ∧ Ay) → x = y] . This is a
somewhat complicated way of going about it. It is perhaps more straightforward to paraphrase sentence A as There is
a thing which is the only apple on the table.'' Thought of in this way, the sentence can be translated
∃x[Ax ∧ ¬∃y(Ay ∧ x ≠ y)] .

Similarly, sentence B may be paraphrased as, There are two different apples on the table, and these are the only apples
on the table.'' This can be translated as ∃x∃y[Ax ∧ Ay ∧ x ≠ y ∧ ¬∃z(Az ∧ x ≠ z ∧ y ≠ z)] .

Finally, consider this sentence:

E. There are at most two things on the table.

It might be tempting to add a predicate so that T x would mean x is a thing on the table.'' However, this is unnecessary.
Since the UD is the set of things on the table, all members of the UD are on the table. If we want to talk about a thing on
the table, we need only use a quanti er. Sentence E can be symbolized like sentence D (which said that there were at
most two apples), but leaving out the predicate entirely. That is, sentence E can be translated as
∀x∀y∀z(x = y ∨ x = z ∨ y = z) .

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 § 3 Complex Statements Involving Identity

There are occasions (for instance, in quizzes and tests) where we have to talk about not only the quantity of some
objects, but also their relations to something else. Consider the following statement:

At least two apples are next to some oranges.

How should we proceed? It might help to rst change the English sentence to a more logic-friendly form before tackling
the QL. To begin we note that we are essentially talking about three objects: unique orange A, unique orange B, and at
least one orange. Thus, we can say. Since we are committing into their existence, we can say:

There exist at least two apples and at least one orange such that these apples are next to these oranges.

From here, we can begin our translation by writing out the quanti ers and assigning variables to things we want to talk
about:

∃x∃y∃z x is an apple y is an apple, x and y are not the same, and they are next to some orange z

From this 'pseudo-QL' statement, it is a small step to complete the translation, by adding the predicates:

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 ∃x∃y∃z(Ax ∧ By ∧ x ≠ y ∧ Oz ∧ N xz ∧ N yz)

Note that there is some ambiguity in the English: our QL statement says that there is some orange that is next to both
of these apples. But the original statement does not necessarily say that - it could mean that for each of these apples,
it is next to some orange, but these are not necessarily the same one. Apple A can be next to orange B but not orange
C, and apple D can be next to C but not B. To accommodate this possibility, we can add another existential quanti er to
allow the interpretation that there are two different oranges

∃x∃y∃z∃w(Ax ∧ By ∧ x ≠ y ∧ Oz ∧ N xz ∧ N yw ∧ Ow)

Here we don't say that z ≠ w because we don't know for sure if they are not the same; we allow the possibility. Note
that we can also translate the same sentence conditionally:

∃x∃y[Ax ∧ By ∧ x ≠ y ∧ ∀z((z = x ∨ z = y) → ∃w(Ow ∧ N zw))]

This one says: there are at least two distinct oranges such that if we have anything that is identical to one of them, then
it will be next to some orange. Clearly, no one talks this way in real life ( except for pretentious logicians) but it
expresses the same idea.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD