COMP 2711H: Lecture 2
Date: 2024-09-02 17:34:27
Reviewed:
Topic / Chapter: Predicate Logic and Peano's Axioms
summary
βQuestions
- Does predicate / logic have much thing to do with (3-)SAT?
- π¨βπ« No, that's more of an algorithm...
 
Notes
Rules of Inference
- 
Other unnamed rules- proof by contradiction
- informal "Rule of Equivalence"
 "Trivial" ones
- conjunction
- disjunctive syllogism
- modus tollens application
- simplification
- addition
- syllogism - 2
- syllogism of OR
- reverse syllogism of OR
- reverse syllogism of OR
- 
Proof- theorem: assuming following conditions
- wants to prove:
 
- process
- // premise
- // rule of equivalence
- // premise
- // rule of syllogism 2,3
- // premise
- // rule of syllogism 4,5
 
- above proof: can be checked by machine!
- if it understands all symbols, etc.
- π¨βπ« above: a "formal, mathematical" proof
 
- and, we can now add a new rule
 
- theorem: assuming following conditions
Predicates and Quantifiers
- 
Predicates- Boolean statement w/ variable
- : a predicate if it becomes a prop. when  is replaced by a value
- π¨βπ«in our UNIVERSE
 
 
- : a predicate if it becomes a prop. when  is replaced by a value
- examples
- // false
-  // true
- however, if if out "universe" is that of integer
- no solution for the above exists
 
 
- we can have multiple variables, too
 
- Boolean statement w/ variable
- 
Quantifiers- universal quantifier 
- "forall (in universe) s.t. "
 
- existential quantifier 
- "exists (at least one in the universe...) s.t. "
 
- example: 
- if universe is within the : true
- alternatively:
 
 
- universal quantifier 
- 
Rules on-  relation
- βdistributive law
- π¨βπ« but not the following!!
- there can be a that satisfies "either" one, but not both
- e.g. 
- one on the left: w/ stricter requirement
 
 
- also: following is wrong, for the same reason
- there can be a that only satisfies one predicate
- e.g.
- one on the left: w/ looser requirement here
 
 
 
-  relation
Defining Natural Numbers
- 
Natural numbers- highschool definition: 
- π¨βπ« not good! vague, what does the mean?
 
- solved by Peano, in 19th century
- Peano axioms
- 0 is a natural number
- rules below: exists as equality wasn't defined by then...
 - for every natural number ,
- ...
 
- every natural number has a successor
- 
- i.e. is a one-to-one
 
- if  is a set s.t. 
- βthen
- π¨βπ« basis of all mathematical induction
 
 
- 0 is a natural number
- example: I want to prove 
- let be the set of all natural no. s.t.
- showing two things are sufficient:
- holds
 
 
 
- highschool definition: