More QL Translations

()

More QL Translations

1 / 27

1

Introduction

2

Translating English into QL

3

Translating from QL

4

Moving Quantifiers

()

More QL Translations

2 / 27

Familiarizing with the Language of QL Our goal here is to get familiarized with the the language of QL The best way to do so would be to tackle some translation exercises. () More QL Translations 3 / 27 .

1 Introduction 2 Translating English into QL 3 Translating from QL 4 Moving Quantifiers () More QL Translations 4 / 27 .

is married to ...... ’R’ means ...Individual Variables and Predicate Letters Interpretation of individual variable ’m’ means Maldwyn ’n’ means Nerys ’o’ means Owen Predicate Letters ’F’ means is a man ’G’ means is a woman ’L’ means ...prefers . () More QL Translations 5 / 27 ..loves .. The domain of discourse: All people. to .. ’M’ means ..

’Every woman y is such that. () More QL Translations 6 / 27 .’ etc or else ones involving relative clauses like ’Every one x who is a man is such that’ ’Some woman y who loves Owen is such that. The the restricted quantifiers would be either simple ones like ’some man x is such that’.Two stages of Translation I Stage One Re-express the proposition in English itself using prefixed-quantifiers plus variable terminology.’ etc.The quantifiers used will be restricted quantifiers.

...]) The arrow ’→’ Can be read as ’translated as’ () More QL Translations 7 / 27 ....Stage Two Translate the simple restricted Quantifiers into QL as follows: (Every man is such that) [.z...]→ ∀z(Fz ⊃¬ [...........y ..x...z ...]→ ∃y(Gy ∧ [.......]) (No man z is such that) [...x ...]) (Some woman y is such that) [.x.] → ∀x(Fx ⊃ [...x .y.y..z .z.y .

’Some woman y who loves Own’ is equivalent to ’someone y who-is-a woman-and-loves-Own.Translating quantifiers with relative clauses: ’Every one x who is man is such that’ is equivalent to ’every man is such that.’ Thus we can translate this more complex quantification by using conjunctive restrictive clauses.’ And so it gets translated the same way. () More QL Translations 8 / 27 .

Examples of Translations into QL I 1 Whoever is loved by Owen is loved by Maldwyn too → ∀x(Lox ⊃ Lmx) Every woman who loves Maldwyn is loved by Owen → ∀x((Gx ∧ Lxm)⊃ Lox) Maldwyn loves some woman who loves owen → ∃x((Gx ∧ Lxo) ∧ Lmx) 2 3 () More QL Translations 9 / 27 .

.Translations .. reading of the English can be rendered ∃y∀x(Fx ⊃ Lxy) () More QL Translations 10 / 27 . 4 5 No man who loves Nerys loves own or Maldwyn → ¬∃x((Fx ∧ Lxn) ∧ (Lxo ∨ Lxm)) Or alternatively → ∀x((Fx ∧ Lxn) ⊃ ¬(Lxo ∨ Lxm)) Every man loves someone → ∀x(Fx⊃∃yLxy) This can also be translated as ∀x∃y(Fx ⊃ Lxy) The other very much less natural.

Examples .. I 6 Every one Owen loves is loved by someone Nerys Loves → ∀x(Lox ⊃ ∃y(Lny ∧ Lyx)) No woman loves every man → ¬∃x(Gx ∧ ∀y(Fy ⊃ Lxy)) 0r ∀x(Gx ⊃ ¬ ∀y(Fy ⊃ Lxy)) No woman loves any man → ¬∃x (Gx ∧ ∃y(Fy ∧ Lxy)) or ∀x(Gx ⊃ ¬∃y(Fy ∧ Lxy)) If everyone loves Nerys then Owen does. → (∀xLxn ⊃ Lon) 7 8 9 () More QL Translations 11 / 27 ..

..Examples . II (∀xLxn ⊃ Lon) is quite different from ∀x(Lxn ⊃ Lon). So the conditional ’(∀xLxn ⊃ Lon)’is true. () More QL Translations 12 / 27 . Suppose that Maldwyn loves Nerys and Owen does not. This wff is true in different circumstances.Then ’∀xLxn’and ’Lon’are both false. So its universal quantification ∀x (Lxn ⊃ Lon) is false too. (Lmn ⊃ Lon) is false. However.

’ If any one loves Nerys then Owen does. → (∃x Lxn ⊃ Lon) Someone who is married loves Nerys We have in our QL vocabulary the two-place predicate ’M’ meaning ’. 9 10 11 In most contexts.... is married to. This is the same as ’If theres some one or other who loves Nerys. so 10 can be translated as → ∃x(∃yMxy ∧ Lxn) Anyone who is married loves someone they arent married to. So ’x is married’ can be translated ∃yMxy.. → ∀x(∃zMxz ⊃ ∃y(¬Mxy ∧ Lxy)) () More QL Translations 13 / 27 . then own loves her.. ’If anyone loves Nerys. then Owen does’...’ But how do we translate the one-place predicate ’..is married’ ? To be married is to be married to someone...Examples.

But in the last step.Examples. their scope do not overlap.. → ¬ ∀x((Fx ∧ ∃zMxz)⊃ ∀y((Gy ∧ Lxy) ⊃ Lxy)) 14 Nerys loves any married men who prefer her to whomever they are married to.. always use letters that do not already appear in the wff. and the local cross linking of variables and quanfifiers is quite unambiguous. → ∀x([Fx ∧ ∃zMxz] ∧ ∀y[Mxy ⊃ Rxny]⊃ lnx). () More QL Translations 14 / 27 . 12 A married man only loves women → ∀x((Fx ∧ ∃zMxz)⊃ ∀y(Lxy ⊃ Gy)) 13 Not every married man loves any woman who loves him. It is a very good policy when introducing new variables into a wff. it would have been permissible to use ’y’ again and write → ∀x(∃yMxy ⊃ ∃y(¬Mxy ∧ Lxy)) We can do this because these two existential quantification are isolated from each other.

1 Introduction 2 Translating English into QL 3 Translating from QL 4 Moving Quantifiers () More QL Translations 15 / 27 .

So says’ No x which is A is such that x is B’ As a first stage.)⊃ ¬B(. it is easy to decode the message.. Consider: ∀x(∃y(Mxy ∧ Lxy) ⊃ ¬ ∃ y(Lxy ∧ ∀ z(Mxz ⊃ Rxyz))) It is of the form ∀x(A(.))..x...Once we are familiar with the kind of devices that QL uses for expressing restricted quantification....x.. then we have. No x who is such that ∃y(Mxy ∧ Lxy) is such that ∃ y (Lxy ∧ ∀z (Mxz ⊃ Rxyz)) This is interpreted as No x who is married to someone who loves them is such that ∃y(Lxy ∧ ∀z(Mxz ⊃ Rxyz)) () More QL Translations 16 / 27 .

is such that theres someone y they love who is such that x prefers y to whoever x is married to. () More QL Translations 17 / 27 . who is married to someone who loves them. Or in augmented (though not quite unambiguous) English: No one who is married to some one who loves them loves someone they prefer to whoever they are married to.This in turn decodes as No one x. is such that theres some one y they love who is such that ∀y(Mxz ⊃ Rxyz) That says No one x. who is married to someone who loves them.

1 Introduction 2 Translating English into QL 3 Translating from QL 4 Moving Quantifiers () More QL Translations 18 / 27 .

the sentence No humans are perfect can be translated as either ∀x(Hx ⊃ ¬Px) or as ¬∃x(Hx ∧ Px). For example. So everyone is wise for example can be translated as either ’∀xFx’ or ’∀yFy’ While translating ’Someone loves someone.’ there is nothing to choose between ’∃x ∃yLxy’ and ’∃y ∃xLxy’ () More QL Translations 19 / 27 . Alphabetical choice of variables is arbitrary.Alternative ways of translating I There are number of cases where there are distinct but equally good translations: For translating ’no’ sentence we have two good options.

() More QL Translations 20 / 27 . immediately adjacent quantifiers of the same can be interchanged. Indeed the whole rationale of our notation is that it allows us unambiguously mark the difference between messages expressed by eg.Alternative ways of translating II Similarly there is nothing to choose between ’∀x∀yLxy’ and ’∀y ∀xLxy’ We can unrestrictedly swap quantifiers around. However.’∀x∃yLxy’ and ’∃y∀xLxy’.

. Like wise ∃xLxn attributes to Nerys the property of being loved by someone.i.e. the property of loving someone. So ’∃x∃yLxy’ holds just if there is a pair of people in the domain (not necessarily distinct) such that the first loves the second. () More QL Translations 21 / 27 .Neighbouring Quantifiers I Consider the case where we have neighboring existential quantifiers: ’∃yLnxy’ attributes Nerys the property of loving someone. Quantifying in we get ∃y∃xLxy which says that someone has the property that ’∃xLxn attributes to Nerys. When we quantify in we get ’∃x∃yLxy. which says that someone has the property that ∃yLny attributes Nerys. i.e. the property of being loved by someone..

.w... That is the same truth-condition for ∃x∃yLxy And the point generalizes to any pair of wffs of the form ’∃v∃w C(...Neighbouring Quantifiers II So ∃y∃xLxy holds if there is a pair of people in the domain (not necessarily distinct. Similarly for pairs of universal quantifiers.W. () More QL Translations 22 / 27 ...v ...v.)’..)’ and ’∃w∃vC(...) such that the first loves the second.

....v. The order of conjuncts does not matter.))≡ ∀v(A ∧ B(.)) if the variable v does not occur in A.v...Another sort of alternative translation I Suppose we want to translate ’Nerys is a woman everyone loves’ There are alternative translations: 1 (Gn ∧ ∀xLxn) 2 ∀x(Gn ∧ Lxn) The second holds just in case every one x is such as to make it true that (Nerys is a woman and x loves her)..v...v... () More QL Translations 23 / 27 ..... 2 (A ∧ ∃vB(. More generally speaking following equivalences hold: 1 (A ∧ ∀vB(.)) if the variable v doesn’t occur in A.))≡ ∃v (A ∧ B(. This holds in case Nerys is a woman loved by every one which is what the first says..

.v)) ≡ ∀v(A ∨ B (. It would have been equally legitimate to write ∃x∃y(Mxy ∧ Lxn) given the variable y does not occur in the second conjunct...)) where v does not occur in A and order of disjuncts does not matter...’ We could equally well write (Lon ∨ ∀x¬Lxn) Or ∀x(Lon ∨ ¬Lxn) More generally we have: 1 (A ∨ ∀vB(.v. We can do similar manipulations with disjunctions: Suppose we want to translate ’Either Owen loves Nerys or nobody does.. () More QL Translations 24 / 27 .Another sort of alternative translation II ’Someone who is married loves Nerys’ can be translated as ∃x(∃yMxy ∧ Lxn) as we have done earlier.

..v..Another sort of alternative translation III 2 (A ∨ ∃vB(..)) () More QL Translations 25 / 27 .

v.Conditionals and Moving of Quantifiers I The case where we really have to be careful involves conditionals We have as you might expect.)) ≡ ∀v(A ⊃ B(..... v. 1 2 (A ⊃ ∀vB(....v...)) However......v.) ⊃ A) Extracting universal quantification from antecedent of a conditional (when the variable does not occur in the consequent)turns it into an existential quantification.v... This is so because antecedent of conditionals are like negated disjuncts .)) ≡ ∃v(A ⊃ B(.remember (A ⊃ B) is equivalent to (¬A ∨ B) () More QL Translations 26 / 27 ....)⊃ A) ≡ ∃v(..... note very carefully the following: 1 2 (∀v(B . v.v..v....)⊃ A) ≡ ∀v(B(...)) (A ⊃ ∃vB(.....)⊃ A) (∃vB(...)) ≡ ∃v(A ⊃ B (..v.

Conditionals and Moving of Quantifiers II Remeber also that when quantifiers tangle with negation they ’flip’ into the other quantifier. Consider for example. the following chain of equivalences. (∀x Fx ⊃ Fn) ≡ (¬∀xFx ∨ Fn) ≡ (∃x¬ Fx ∨ Fn) ≡ ∃x(¬Fx ∨ Fn) ≡∃x (Fx ⊃ Fn) () More QL Translations 27 / 27 .