Awesome q2a theme
0 votes
$(i) \exists(R\rightarrow I)\equiv \forall R\rightarrow \exists I$

$(ii)\forall (R\rightarrow I)\equiv \exists R\rightarrow\forall I $

Are both of them coreect??

I have doubt in second one...
in Mathematical Logic by (388 points) | 30 views
1st one is correct

2nd  one not true.

By going meaning of the statements, I am getting this

1 Answer

+1 vote
$\exists (R \rightarrow I ) \equiv \exists (R' \vee I) \equiv \exists R' \vee \exists I$

$\forall R \rightarrow \exists I  \equiv \exists R' \vee \exists I $

$\forall (R \rightarrow I ) \equiv \forall (R' \vee I) \equiv \sim \exists (R \wedge I') $ It means that there does not exists a case where $R$ and $I'$ holds true togather.  like $R$ is getting heads and $I'$ is getting tails then both head and tails can't occur togather.

$\exists R \rightarrow \forall I  \equiv \forall R' \vee \forall I \equiv \sim \exists R \ \wedge \sim \exists I' $  It means that " there does not exists an $R$ for a case and there does not exists an $I'$ for a case." Clearly it is different from above example since heads and tails occur for all cases of coin flip.
by (4.1k points)
Sir, Your example of head and tail is not correct here.. R and I are should be independent(if nothing is given about them).
2nd one RHS is telling , for some R , there exists all I

But Say

$R=\left \{ 1,2 \right \}$

$I=\left \{ 3,4 \right \}$

Mapping here

$1\rightarrow 3$

$2\rightarrow 4$

Now, If we take, some R means only $1$, it doesnot have a mapping for $4.$

So, RHS fails
Yes i understand..

We can give analogy as--

$\forall (R\rightarrow I)$ Every rich person is intelligent.

$\exists R\rightarrow \forall I$ if there is atleast one rich person then all are intelligent.

If there exist only one person which is rich and intelligent. Then LHS willl be true. If other persons are not intelligent then RHS becomes false.. So (ii) is not coreect.
Yes, you are correct but don't relate it to real world , i just gave it so that i can show both c and d are different meaning.

If you relate these things to real world then in exam you can get confused, like they will give "every flower is a rose" , and "every rose is a flower." You would get confuse if you start relating it to real world.

You can make ball and bucket example.

another example can be R -> ram goes to school, I' -> monu goes to job

LHS = there does not exists a case when ram goes to school and monu goes to job (at same case)

RHS = There does not exist any case when ram goes to school and there does not exists any case when monu goes to job.(at different cases)
Yes yes..

But we shouldn't have to use complementary propositions..

Like p= getting head

q= getting tail

Which clearly implies that p=q' (implied only because of our assumption)..

Rest is fine :)
Quick search syntax
tags tag:apple
author user:martin
title title:apple
content content:apple
exclude -tag:apple
force match +apple
views views:100
score score:10
answers answers:2
is accepted isaccepted:true
is closed isclosed:true
Top Users 2020 Aug 10 - 16
  1. jayeshasawa001

    85 Points

  2. Ashutosh777

    54 Points

  3. Arkaprava

    44 Points

  4. Nilabja Sarkar

    12 Points

  5. premu

    8 Points

  6. Patel0967

    6 Points

  7. abcd9982

    5 Points

  8. siddharths067

    4 Points

  9. Ankit Kabi

    4 Points

  10. iarnav

    4 Points

Weekly Top User (excluding moderators) will get free access to GATE Overflow Test Series for GATE 2021
Welcome to GATE CSE Doubts, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.
Top Users Aug 2020
  1. Mellophi

    152 Points

  2. Ashutosh777

    130 Points

  3. jayeshasawa001

    90 Points

  4. anurag sharma

    49 Points

  5. Arkaprava

    44 Points

  6. Kushagra गुप्ता

    15 Points

  7. premu

    14 Points

  8. Shaik Masthan

    13 Points

  9. srestha

    13 Points

  10. shashankrustagi2021

    12 Points

7,751 questions
1,855 answers
95,105 users