The barbers paradox first order logic formalizationfirst order logic resolution unificationWhat is the relation between First Order Logic and First Order Theory?Quantified Boolean Formula vs First-order logicAbout the first order logic (valid, Unsatisfiable, Syntactically wrong)Resolution in First Order LogicExercise about First-order logicFirst Order Logic : PredicatesFirst Order Logic, First Order Logic + Recurrence and SQLReal world applications of first order logicTerminology First-Order Logic
What happens if I start too many background jobs?
Why do computer-science majors learn calculus?
Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?
Historically, were women trained for obligatory wars? Or did they serve some other military function?
Can fracking help reduce CO2?
Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank
Transfer over $10k
Conflicting terms and the definition of a «child»
What word means "to make something obsolete"?
How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?
Disabling Resource Governor in SQL Server
Floor tile layout process?
Pigeonhole Principle Problem
Why debootstrap can only run as root?
Does hiding behind 5-ft-wide cover give full cover?
Does the time required to copy a spell into a spellbook have to be consecutive, or is that just the cumulative time required?
Why do freehub and cassette have only one position that matches?
Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills
Geometry - Proving a common centroid.
Airbnb - host wants to reduce rooms, can we get refund?
If Melisandre foresaw another character closing blue eyes, why did she follow Stannis?
Write to EXCEL from SQL DB using VBA script
Binary Numbers Magic Trick
A non-technological, repeating, phenomenon in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours
The barbers paradox first order logic formalization
first order logic resolution unificationWhat is the relation between First Order Logic and First Order Theory?Quantified Boolean Formula vs First-order logicAbout the first order logic (valid, Unsatisfiable, Syntactically wrong)Resolution in First Order LogicExercise about First-order logicFirst Order Logic : PredicatesFirst Order Logic, First Order Logic + Recurrence and SQLReal world applications of first order logicTerminology First-Order Logic
$begingroup$
I tried to look on the site and while I found some similar questions, I did not find the first order logic formalization of the following sentence (the basic barber's paradox), so I wanted to ask if I got the right first order logic formalization of it, and I am sure others will benefit from this thread as well.
Sentence: there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves.
My attempt: this complicated sentence can be made simpler by inferring that "for all of those who does not shave themselves, are shaved by the barber"
And now it seems to be easier to substitute with variables so:
$$exists x(lnot S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x))$$
where $S(x,x)$ is shaving(verb), $x$ are the persons (who don't shave themselves), and $b$ is a shortcut for barber, so if a person does not shave himself, it can be inferred that he is shaved by the barber.
logic artificial-intelligence first-order-logic
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I tried to look on the site and while I found some similar questions, I did not find the first order logic formalization of the following sentence (the basic barber's paradox), so I wanted to ask if I got the right first order logic formalization of it, and I am sure others will benefit from this thread as well.
Sentence: there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves.
My attempt: this complicated sentence can be made simpler by inferring that "for all of those who does not shave themselves, are shaved by the barber"
And now it seems to be easier to substitute with variables so:
$$exists x(lnot S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x))$$
where $S(x,x)$ is shaving(verb), $x$ are the persons (who don't shave themselves), and $b$ is a shortcut for barber, so if a person does not shave himself, it can be inferred that he is shaved by the barber.
logic artificial-intelligence first-order-logic
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I tried to look on the site and while I found some similar questions, I did not find the first order logic formalization of the following sentence (the basic barber's paradox), so I wanted to ask if I got the right first order logic formalization of it, and I am sure others will benefit from this thread as well.
Sentence: there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves.
My attempt: this complicated sentence can be made simpler by inferring that "for all of those who does not shave themselves, are shaved by the barber"
And now it seems to be easier to substitute with variables so:
$$exists x(lnot S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x))$$
where $S(x,x)$ is shaving(verb), $x$ are the persons (who don't shave themselves), and $b$ is a shortcut for barber, so if a person does not shave himself, it can be inferred that he is shaved by the barber.
logic artificial-intelligence first-order-logic
$endgroup$
I tried to look on the site and while I found some similar questions, I did not find the first order logic formalization of the following sentence (the basic barber's paradox), so I wanted to ask if I got the right first order logic formalization of it, and I am sure others will benefit from this thread as well.
Sentence: there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves.
My attempt: this complicated sentence can be made simpler by inferring that "for all of those who does not shave themselves, are shaved by the barber"
And now it seems to be easier to substitute with variables so:
$$exists x(lnot S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x))$$
where $S(x,x)$ is shaving(verb), $x$ are the persons (who don't shave themselves), and $b$ is a shortcut for barber, so if a person does not shave himself, it can be inferred that he is shaved by the barber.
logic artificial-intelligence first-order-logic
logic artificial-intelligence first-order-logic
edited 2 hours ago
David Richerby
71.1k16109199
71.1k16109199
asked 2 hours ago
hps13hps13
396
396
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're not being asked to do any inference; just to express something.
there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves
translates directly as
$$exists b, forall x,big(neg S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x)big),.$$
(There exists a barber such that everyone who doesn't shave themself is shaved by the barber.)
Your version says that there exists a person who, if they don't shave themself, is shaved by the barber. That's not equivalent. For example, it's true in any world where at least one person does shave themself: just let $x$ be that person, so $neg S(x,x)$ is false, so $neg S(x,x)rightarrowtextanything$ is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues about your formula:
First, you use an existential quantifier for the people where there should be a univeral one, since the statement is "all people". What your formula expresses is "There is an $x$ such that if $x$ does't shave themself, the barber does." Instead, what you want to say is that "For all $x$ it holds that if $x$ doesn't shave themself, the barber does." In general, an existentially quantified implicational formula is often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, instead of using a constant name $b$ for the barber, it would be better to directly translate the "There is" as an existential quantifier, and you could also specify that this someone is a barber.
Whith this, the sentence becomes
There is a thing $y$ which is a barber and such that for all people $x$ who don't shave themselves, $y$ shaves $x$.
which translates as
$$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108712%2fthe-barbers-paradox-first-order-logic-formalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You're not being asked to do any inference; just to express something.
there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves
translates directly as
$$exists b, forall x,big(neg S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x)big),.$$
(There exists a barber such that everyone who doesn't shave themself is shaved by the barber.)
Your version says that there exists a person who, if they don't shave themself, is shaved by the barber. That's not equivalent. For example, it's true in any world where at least one person does shave themself: just let $x$ be that person, so $neg S(x,x)$ is false, so $neg S(x,x)rightarrowtextanything$ is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're not being asked to do any inference; just to express something.
there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves
translates directly as
$$exists b, forall x,big(neg S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x)big),.$$
(There exists a barber such that everyone who doesn't shave themself is shaved by the barber.)
Your version says that there exists a person who, if they don't shave themself, is shaved by the barber. That's not equivalent. For example, it's true in any world where at least one person does shave themself: just let $x$ be that person, so $neg S(x,x)$ is false, so $neg S(x,x)rightarrowtextanything$ is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're not being asked to do any inference; just to express something.
there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves
translates directly as
$$exists b, forall x,big(neg S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x)big),.$$
(There exists a barber such that everyone who doesn't shave themself is shaved by the barber.)
Your version says that there exists a person who, if they don't shave themself, is shaved by the barber. That's not equivalent. For example, it's true in any world where at least one person does shave themself: just let $x$ be that person, so $neg S(x,x)$ is false, so $neg S(x,x)rightarrowtextanything$ is true.
$endgroup$
You're not being asked to do any inference; just to express something.
there exists a barber who shaves all the people that don't shave themselves
translates directly as
$$exists b, forall x,big(neg S(x,x) rightarrow S(b,x)big),.$$
(There exists a barber such that everyone who doesn't shave themself is shaved by the barber.)
Your version says that there exists a person who, if they don't shave themself, is shaved by the barber. That's not equivalent. For example, it's true in any world where at least one person does shave themself: just let $x$ be that person, so $neg S(x,x)$ is false, so $neg S(x,x)rightarrowtextanything$ is true.
answered 2 hours ago
David RicherbyDavid Richerby
71.1k16109199
71.1k16109199
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues about your formula:
First, you use an existential quantifier for the people where there should be a univeral one, since the statement is "all people". What your formula expresses is "There is an $x$ such that if $x$ does't shave themself, the barber does." Instead, what you want to say is that "For all $x$ it holds that if $x$ doesn't shave themself, the barber does." In general, an existentially quantified implicational formula is often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, instead of using a constant name $b$ for the barber, it would be better to directly translate the "There is" as an existential quantifier, and you could also specify that this someone is a barber.
Whith this, the sentence becomes
There is a thing $y$ which is a barber and such that for all people $x$ who don't shave themselves, $y$ shaves $x$.
which translates as
$$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues about your formula:
First, you use an existential quantifier for the people where there should be a univeral one, since the statement is "all people". What your formula expresses is "There is an $x$ such that if $x$ does't shave themself, the barber does." Instead, what you want to say is that "For all $x$ it holds that if $x$ doesn't shave themself, the barber does." In general, an existentially quantified implicational formula is often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, instead of using a constant name $b$ for the barber, it would be better to directly translate the "There is" as an existential quantifier, and you could also specify that this someone is a barber.
Whith this, the sentence becomes
There is a thing $y$ which is a barber and such that for all people $x$ who don't shave themselves, $y$ shaves $x$.
which translates as
$$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two issues about your formula:
First, you use an existential quantifier for the people where there should be a univeral one, since the statement is "all people". What your formula expresses is "There is an $x$ such that if $x$ does't shave themself, the barber does." Instead, what you want to say is that "For all $x$ it holds that if $x$ doesn't shave themself, the barber does." In general, an existentially quantified implicational formula is often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, instead of using a constant name $b$ for the barber, it would be better to directly translate the "There is" as an existential quantifier, and you could also specify that this someone is a barber.
Whith this, the sentence becomes
There is a thing $y$ which is a barber and such that for all people $x$ who don't shave themselves, $y$ shaves $x$.
which translates as
$$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$
$endgroup$
There are two issues about your formula:
First, you use an existential quantifier for the people where there should be a univeral one, since the statement is "all people". What your formula expresses is "There is an $x$ such that if $x$ does't shave themself, the barber does." Instead, what you want to say is that "For all $x$ it holds that if $x$ doesn't shave themself, the barber does." In general, an existentially quantified implicational formula is often a sign that something is wrong.
Second, instead of using a constant name $b$ for the barber, it would be better to directly translate the "There is" as an existential quantifier, and you could also specify that this someone is a barber.
Whith this, the sentence becomes
There is a thing $y$ which is a barber and such that for all people $x$ who don't shave themselves, $y$ shaves $x$.
which translates as
$$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
lemontreelemontree
1664
1664
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108712%2fthe-barbers-paradox-first-order-logic-formalization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown