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













1












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    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.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1


      0



      $begingroup$


      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.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago









      David Richerby

      71.1k16109199




      71.1k16109199










      asked 2 hours ago









      hps13hps13

      396




      396




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            2












            $begingroup$

            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



            $$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













              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
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              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









              2












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  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.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 2 hours ago









                  David RicherbyDavid Richerby

                  71.1k16109199




                  71.1k16109199





















                      2












                      $begingroup$

                      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



                      $$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$

















                        2












                        $begingroup$

                        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



                        $$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$















                          2












                          2








                          2





                          $begingroup$

                          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



                          $$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          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



                          $$exists y (B(y) land forall x (neg S(x,x) to S(y,x)))$$







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited 2 hours ago

























                          answered 2 hours ago









                          lemontreelemontree

                          1664




                          1664



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                              Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                              François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480