Lecture 3

Logic

Def: There are two important quantifiers that are often used in mathematics.

• The universal quantifier ,∀, which means for all elements.

• The existential quantifier, ∃, which means there exists an element.

These quantifiers just give a more compact way of writing statements, for example,
1
∃x ∈ N, s.t. ∈ N.
x
is a more compact way to say the statement “There exists an element of the natural
numbers, x, such that its reciprocal, x1 , is also a natural number.” Similarly,
∀x ∈ R, x2 > 0.
says, “For every element x of the real numbers, x2 > 0.”
Ex: Determine the truth values of the above statements. The first is true because of
x = 1 and the second is false because x = 0.
We have the following examples of converting english sentences to quantifiers.
Ex:

• “Every integer that is not odd is even”

∀n ∈ Z, ¬(n is odd) =⇒ (n is even)
• “There is an integer that is not even”
∃z ∈ Z, ¬(n is even)
• “For every real number x, there is a real number y for which y 3 = x”
∀x ∈ R, ∃y ∈ R, y 3 = x
• “The product of any two rational numbers is rational”
∀a, b ∈ Q, ab ∈ Q

Def: Given a collection of statements, i.e. Pi is a statement for every i ∈ Λ where Λ

is some collection of indices, we define
^
Pi ,
i∈Λ
2

to be the logical conjunction of all the statements Pi , i.e. the statement that is only
true if every statement Pi is true. Similarly, we define
_
Pi ,
i∈Λ

to be the logical disjunction of all the statements Pi , i.e. the statement that is true
if at least one of the Pi are true.
Note Given a finite index set, i.e. Λ = {1, 2, . . . , n},
^ n
^
Pi = Pi = P1 ∧ P2 ∧ · · · ∧ Pn .
i∈Λ i=1

Similarly,
_ n
_
Pi = Pi = P1 ∨ P2 ∨ · · · ∨ Pn .
i∈Λ i=1

Remark Logical conjunctions and disjunctions are related to our quantifiers.

• The universal quantifier is related to a logical conjunction. For example, given

the statement
∀x ∈ R, x2 ≥ x,
is equivalent to ^
P (x),
x∈R
where P (x) is the statement P (x) : x2 ≥ x.
• Similarly, the existential quantifier is related to a logical disjunction. For
example, given the statement
∃x ∈ R, s.t. x + 1 = 0.
is equivalent to _
P (x),
x∈R
where P (x) is the statement P (x) : x + 1 = 0.

Negating Quantifiers
From our rules of negation from earlier and what we showed immediately above, it is
easy to see what the negation of our quantifiers are.
Let P (x) be a statement for each variable, x in some set S. Then
!
^ _
¬(∀x ∈ S, P (x)) = ¬ P (x) = ¬P (x) = ∃x ∈ S, ¬P (x).
x∈S x∈S
 3

Similarly,
!
_ ^
¬(∃x ∈ S, P (x)) = ¬ P (x) = ¬P (x) = ∀x ∈ S, ¬P (x).
x∈S x∈S

From this we see that the negation of a universal quantifier is in general an existential
quantifier, and vice–versa.
Note:

• When trying to disprove a ‘for every’ statement, because of the above you
only need to assure the existence of one counterexample.
• When trying to disprove a ‘there exists’ statement life is a little harder. Be-
cause of the above, to disprove the statements you must assure the negation
happens for every possible case.

Ex: We first translate the statement “For all real numbers x, x3 = x.” into our new
language involving quantifiers.

∀x ∈ R, x3 6= x.

Then the negation of this statement is,

¬(∀x ∈ R, x3 6= x) ⇐⇒ ∃x ∈ R, x3 = x.

Ex: Let us negate the prior statements

a). “Every integer that is not odd is even”

∀n ∈ Z, ¬(n is odd) =⇒ (n is even)

b). “There is an integer that is not even”

∃z ∈ Z, ¬(n is even)

c). “For every real number x, there is a real number y for which y 3 = x”

∀x ∈ R, ∃y ∈ R, y 3 = x

d). “The product of any two rational numbers is rational”

∀a, b ∈ Q, ab ∈ Q

And now their negations (do note that as all of the prior statements above are true,
thus all of these negations will be false)
4

a).
∃n ∈ Z, ¬(n is odd) ∧ ¬(n is even)
or equivalently
∃n ∈ Z, (n is odd) ∧ (n is even)
b).
∀z ∈ Z, (n is even)
c).
∃x ∈ R, ∀y ∈ R, y 3 6= x
d).
∃a, b ∈ Q, ab ∈
/Q

Be Careful about Order

Just note that the order of quantifiers matter, there is a large difference between the
two statements

•
∀x ∈ R, ∃y ∈ R, y 3 = x
•
∃y ∈ R, ∀x ∈ R, y 3 = x

The first says “For every real number x, there is a real number y for which y 3 = x”
(and is true) whereas the second says “There is a real number y, such that y 3 = x for
all real numbers x” (which is clearly false)
Note: Just to make this clear. When P and Q are statements that depend on a
variable x and you are given the implication statement
P (x) =⇒ Q(x)
This is equivalent shorthand to saying
∀x ∈ X, P (x) =⇒ Q(x)

Ex: Let us convert more statements from english into quatifier form

• We say f is continuous at a, if for any  > 0, there is a delta δ > 0 such that
|x − a| < δ implies |f (x) − f (a)| < .
∀ > 0, ∃δ > 0, ∀x ∈ X, (|x − a| < δ) =⇒ (|f (x) − f (a)| < )
 5

• The mean value theorem: If f is continuous on [a, b] and differentiable on

(a, b) then there exists a c in (a, b) with f 0 (c) = f (b)−f
b−a
(a)
.
 
0 f (b) − f (a)
(f cont. on [a,b]) ∧ (f diff. on (a,b)) =⇒ ∃c ∈ (a, b), f (c) =
b−a
• At least one of the integers x and y is even
(x is even) ∨ (y is even)
• The Principle of Mathematical Induction - For a collection of statements P (n)
dependent upon n ∈ N, if P (1) is true and P (n) being true implies that
P (n + 1) is true, then P (m) is true for all m ∈ N. Or equivalently written as
statements,
(P (1) ∧ (P (n) =⇒ P (n + 1))) =⇒ (∀m ∈ N, P (m)).

For practice we will negate the statement of continuity, however to do so we will need
to make use of something I snuck in earlier, which is negating implications. If we use
that P =⇒ Q is logically equivalent to ¬P ∨ Q, then we have
¬(P =⇒ Q) ⇐⇒ (P ∧ ¬Q)

Let us negate the definition of f being continuous at a, this will be

∃ > 0, ∀δ > 0, ∃x ∈ X, [|x − a| < δ] ∧ [|f (x) − f (a)| ≥ ]

For more practice, let us find the negation of the principle of mathematical induction.
Let us first find what ¬ PMI is. Using the statement formulation of PMI.
¬[(P (1) ∧ (P (n) =⇒ P (n + 1))) =⇒ (∀m ∈ N, P (m)).] ⇐⇒
¬[¬(P (1) ∧ (P (n) =⇒ P (n + 1))) ∨ (∀m ∈ N, P (m))] ⇐⇒
P (1) ∧ (P (n) =⇒ P (n + 1)) ∧ ¬(∀m ∈ N, P (m)) ⇐⇒
P (1) ∧ (P (n) =⇒ P (n + 1)) ∧ (∃m ∈ N, ¬P (m))

Logical Inference
Logical inference is the process of deducing the truth of a third statement given that
two prior statements are true. Notationally this appears as writing two statements
in a row, followed by a line, and then the statement that is deduced. For example
A
B
A∧B
6

There are three rules that are used commonly in logical arguments

(1) Modus Ponens: Saying the statement P =⇒ Q is true tells you nothing about
the truth of P and Q seperately, however, knowing this statement is true and
P is true allows you to deduce P , i.e.
P =⇒ Q
P
Q
(2) Modus Tollens: This is modus ponens using that an implication and it’s con-
trapositive have equivalent truth values
P =⇒ Q
¬Q
¬P
(3) Elimination: this uses that a logical disjunction is only false when both state-
ments are false
P ∨Q
¬P
Q