What would be the negation of these statements?












0












$begingroup$


What would be the negation of



"No dogs have three legs".



I think "Some dogs do not have three legs"



"Some animals don't eat meat"



I think "All animals eat meat"



"I make the bread, or she does not make the bread"



I think "I do not make the bread, and she does make the bread"



Am i right here?






logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:04
















0












$begingroup$


What would be the negation of



"No dogs have three legs".



I think "Some dogs do not have three legs"



"Some animals don't eat meat"



I think "All animals eat meat"



"I make the bread, or she does not make the bread"



I think "I do not make the bread, and she does make the bread"



Am i right here?






logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:04














0












0








0





$begingroup$


What would be the negation of



"No dogs have three legs".



I think "Some dogs do not have three legs"



"Some animals don't eat meat"



I think "All animals eat meat"



"I make the bread, or she does not make the bread"



I think "I do not make the bread, and she does make the bread"



Am i right here?






logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




What would be the negation of



"No dogs have three legs".



I think "Some dogs do not have three legs"



"Some animals don't eat meat"



I think "All animals eat meat"



"I make the bread, or she does not make the bread"



I think "I do not make the bread, and she does make the bread"



Am i right here?






logic




logic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 18 '13 at 16:08







MethodManX

















asked Jul 18 '13 at 16:01









MethodManXMethodManX

594112135




594112135












  • $begingroup$
    Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:04


















  • $begingroup$
    Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:04
















$begingroup$
Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 18 '13 at 16:04




$begingroup$
Note that "No dog has three legs" and "One dog has four legs more than no dog" does not imply "One dog has seven legs" :)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 18 '13 at 16:04










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The negation of the first statement would be "Some dogs have three legs." You are correct on the second and the third.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you i just realized that
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:03










  • $begingroup$
    My friend can you check my last question please
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your last one is correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Keister
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:11



















3












$begingroup$

Tip: a good way to start when negating any proposition $P$ is to assert $lnot P$, i.e., if we have a sentence "P", we can negate it simply by writing "It is not the case that P". Then, if we want to "translate" further from loglish to more customary natural language, we can do so if we choose. I personally find it helpful to translate the initial statement into logic. Then I negate it, perhaps distribute the negation, and "read off" the result back in natural language. I do that simply because negating natural language can be easily side-tracked or awkward to directly negate.



You did fine, overall, except for the first assertion:



(1) We start with the assertion $P$: No dogs have three legs.




  • Then we negate it by stating $lnot P:$ It is NOT the case that (No dogs have three legs).

  • If we translate further, we see that $lnot P$ can be expressed as "There exists one or more dogs with three legs": I.e., "Some dogs have three legs".


If we were to translate the initial statement to "logic" first, with the domain being "dogs": and $T(x)$ meaning $x$ has three legs, then the initial first statement can be espressed as $P: forall x lnot T(x)$



The negation would be $lnot P$: $$lnot [forall x lnot T(x)] iff exists x(lnot lnot T(x)) iff exists x T(x)$$ $$;;text{Negated sentence: Some dogs have three legs}$$




$(2)$ Your second negation is just fine.



$(3)$ Yes, you used DeMorgan's correctly, and your translation is correct.



P: I make the bread;
Q: she makes the bread



Given $P lor lnot Q$, its negation is $lnot (Plor lnot Q) equiv lnot P land Q$, which gives us "I don't make the bread and she makes the bread."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:52



















2












$begingroup$

For a sanity check, try to imagine someone saying these sentences in conversation. What would you have to do to prove that they are lying?



For "no dogs have three legs", you would just have to prove the existence of a dog with three legs (hopefully you can find such a dog, rather than having to produce your own example...)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sanity check for a police inspector?
    $endgroup$
    – Ilya
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:09











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446675%2fwhat-would-be-the-negation-of-these-statements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

The negation of the first statement would be "Some dogs have three legs." You are correct on the second and the third.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you i just realized that
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:03










  • $begingroup$
    My friend can you check my last question please
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your last one is correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Keister
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:11
















3












$begingroup$

The negation of the first statement would be "Some dogs have three legs." You are correct on the second and the third.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you i just realized that
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:03










  • $begingroup$
    My friend can you check my last question please
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your last one is correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Keister
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:11














3












3








3





$begingroup$

The negation of the first statement would be "Some dogs have three legs." You are correct on the second and the third.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The negation of the first statement would be "Some dogs have three legs." You are correct on the second and the third.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jul 18 '13 at 16:12

























answered Jul 18 '13 at 16:02









Adrian KeisterAdrian Keister

4,82251933




4,82251933












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you i just realized that
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:03










  • $begingroup$
    My friend can you check my last question please
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your last one is correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Keister
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:11


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you i just realized that
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:03










  • $begingroup$
    My friend can you check my last question please
    $endgroup$
    – MethodManX
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your last one is correct.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Keister
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:11
















$begingroup$
Thank you i just realized that
$endgroup$
– MethodManX
Jul 18 '13 at 16:03




$begingroup$
Thank you i just realized that
$endgroup$
– MethodManX
Jul 18 '13 at 16:03












$begingroup$
My friend can you check my last question please
$endgroup$
– MethodManX
Jul 18 '13 at 16:08




$begingroup$
My friend can you check my last question please
$endgroup$
– MethodManX
Jul 18 '13 at 16:08












$begingroup$
Yes, your last one is correct.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jul 18 '13 at 16:11




$begingroup$
Yes, your last one is correct.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Keister
Jul 18 '13 at 16:11











3












$begingroup$

Tip: a good way to start when negating any proposition $P$ is to assert $lnot P$, i.e., if we have a sentence "P", we can negate it simply by writing "It is not the case that P". Then, if we want to "translate" further from loglish to more customary natural language, we can do so if we choose. I personally find it helpful to translate the initial statement into logic. Then I negate it, perhaps distribute the negation, and "read off" the result back in natural language. I do that simply because negating natural language can be easily side-tracked or awkward to directly negate.



You did fine, overall, except for the first assertion:



(1) We start with the assertion $P$: No dogs have three legs.




  • Then we negate it by stating $lnot P:$ It is NOT the case that (No dogs have three legs).

  • If we translate further, we see that $lnot P$ can be expressed as "There exists one or more dogs with three legs": I.e., "Some dogs have three legs".


If we were to translate the initial statement to "logic" first, with the domain being "dogs": and $T(x)$ meaning $x$ has three legs, then the initial first statement can be espressed as $P: forall x lnot T(x)$



The negation would be $lnot P$: $$lnot [forall x lnot T(x)] iff exists x(lnot lnot T(x)) iff exists x T(x)$$ $$;;text{Negated sentence: Some dogs have three legs}$$




$(2)$ Your second negation is just fine.



$(3)$ Yes, you used DeMorgan's correctly, and your translation is correct.



P: I make the bread;
Q: she makes the bread



Given $P lor lnot Q$, its negation is $lnot (Plor lnot Q) equiv lnot P land Q$, which gives us "I don't make the bread and she makes the bread."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:52
















3












$begingroup$

Tip: a good way to start when negating any proposition $P$ is to assert $lnot P$, i.e., if we have a sentence "P", we can negate it simply by writing "It is not the case that P". Then, if we want to "translate" further from loglish to more customary natural language, we can do so if we choose. I personally find it helpful to translate the initial statement into logic. Then I negate it, perhaps distribute the negation, and "read off" the result back in natural language. I do that simply because negating natural language can be easily side-tracked or awkward to directly negate.



You did fine, overall, except for the first assertion:



(1) We start with the assertion $P$: No dogs have three legs.




  • Then we negate it by stating $lnot P:$ It is NOT the case that (No dogs have three legs).

  • If we translate further, we see that $lnot P$ can be expressed as "There exists one or more dogs with three legs": I.e., "Some dogs have three legs".


If we were to translate the initial statement to "logic" first, with the domain being "dogs": and $T(x)$ meaning $x$ has three legs, then the initial first statement can be espressed as $P: forall x lnot T(x)$



The negation would be $lnot P$: $$lnot [forall x lnot T(x)] iff exists x(lnot lnot T(x)) iff exists x T(x)$$ $$;;text{Negated sentence: Some dogs have three legs}$$




$(2)$ Your second negation is just fine.



$(3)$ Yes, you used DeMorgan's correctly, and your translation is correct.



P: I make the bread;
Q: she makes the bread



Given $P lor lnot Q$, its negation is $lnot (Plor lnot Q) equiv lnot P land Q$, which gives us "I don't make the bread and she makes the bread."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:52














3












3








3





$begingroup$

Tip: a good way to start when negating any proposition $P$ is to assert $lnot P$, i.e., if we have a sentence "P", we can negate it simply by writing "It is not the case that P". Then, if we want to "translate" further from loglish to more customary natural language, we can do so if we choose. I personally find it helpful to translate the initial statement into logic. Then I negate it, perhaps distribute the negation, and "read off" the result back in natural language. I do that simply because negating natural language can be easily side-tracked or awkward to directly negate.



You did fine, overall, except for the first assertion:



(1) We start with the assertion $P$: No dogs have three legs.




  • Then we negate it by stating $lnot P:$ It is NOT the case that (No dogs have three legs).

  • If we translate further, we see that $lnot P$ can be expressed as "There exists one or more dogs with three legs": I.e., "Some dogs have three legs".


If we were to translate the initial statement to "logic" first, with the domain being "dogs": and $T(x)$ meaning $x$ has three legs, then the initial first statement can be espressed as $P: forall x lnot T(x)$



The negation would be $lnot P$: $$lnot [forall x lnot T(x)] iff exists x(lnot lnot T(x)) iff exists x T(x)$$ $$;;text{Negated sentence: Some dogs have three legs}$$




$(2)$ Your second negation is just fine.



$(3)$ Yes, you used DeMorgan's correctly, and your translation is correct.



P: I make the bread;
Q: she makes the bread



Given $P lor lnot Q$, its negation is $lnot (Plor lnot Q) equiv lnot P land Q$, which gives us "I don't make the bread and she makes the bread."






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Tip: a good way to start when negating any proposition $P$ is to assert $lnot P$, i.e., if we have a sentence "P", we can negate it simply by writing "It is not the case that P". Then, if we want to "translate" further from loglish to more customary natural language, we can do so if we choose. I personally find it helpful to translate the initial statement into logic. Then I negate it, perhaps distribute the negation, and "read off" the result back in natural language. I do that simply because negating natural language can be easily side-tracked or awkward to directly negate.



You did fine, overall, except for the first assertion:



(1) We start with the assertion $P$: No dogs have three legs.




  • Then we negate it by stating $lnot P:$ It is NOT the case that (No dogs have three legs).

  • If we translate further, we see that $lnot P$ can be expressed as "There exists one or more dogs with three legs": I.e., "Some dogs have three legs".


If we were to translate the initial statement to "logic" first, with the domain being "dogs": and $T(x)$ meaning $x$ has three legs, then the initial first statement can be espressed as $P: forall x lnot T(x)$



The negation would be $lnot P$: $$lnot [forall x lnot T(x)] iff exists x(lnot lnot T(x)) iff exists x T(x)$$ $$;;text{Negated sentence: Some dogs have three legs}$$




$(2)$ Your second negation is just fine.



$(3)$ Yes, you used DeMorgan's correctly, and your translation is correct.



P: I make the bread;
Q: she makes the bread



Given $P lor lnot Q$, its negation is $lnot (Plor lnot Q) equiv lnot P land Q$, which gives us "I don't make the bread and she makes the bread."







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jul 18 '13 at 17:54

























answered Jul 18 '13 at 16:04









amWhyamWhy

192k28225439




192k28225439












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:52


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
    $endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jul 19 '13 at 0:52
















$begingroup$
Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
$endgroup$
– amWhy
Jul 19 '13 at 0:52




$begingroup$
Thanks, @Amzoti! Appreciated!
$endgroup$
– amWhy
Jul 19 '13 at 0:52











2












$begingroup$

For a sanity check, try to imagine someone saying these sentences in conversation. What would you have to do to prove that they are lying?



For "no dogs have three legs", you would just have to prove the existence of a dog with three legs (hopefully you can find such a dog, rather than having to produce your own example...)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sanity check for a police inspector?
    $endgroup$
    – Ilya
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:09
















2












$begingroup$

For a sanity check, try to imagine someone saying these sentences in conversation. What would you have to do to prove that they are lying?



For "no dogs have three legs", you would just have to prove the existence of a dog with three legs (hopefully you can find such a dog, rather than having to produce your own example...)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sanity check for a police inspector?
    $endgroup$
    – Ilya
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:09














2












2








2





$begingroup$

For a sanity check, try to imagine someone saying these sentences in conversation. What would you have to do to prove that they are lying?



For "no dogs have three legs", you would just have to prove the existence of a dog with three legs (hopefully you can find such a dog, rather than having to produce your own example...)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



For a sanity check, try to imagine someone saying these sentences in conversation. What would you have to do to prove that they are lying?



For "no dogs have three legs", you would just have to prove the existence of a dog with three legs (hopefully you can find such a dog, rather than having to produce your own example...)







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jul 18 '13 at 16:04









citedcorpsecitedcorpse

1,979817




1,979817








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sanity check for a police inspector?
    $endgroup$
    – Ilya
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:09














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sanity check for a police inspector?
    $endgroup$
    – Ilya
    Jul 18 '13 at 16:09








1




1




$begingroup$
Sanity check for a police inspector?
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jul 18 '13 at 16:09




$begingroup$
Sanity check for a police inspector?
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jul 18 '13 at 16:09


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f446675%2fwhat-would-be-the-negation-of-these-statements%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

An IMO inspired problem

Image
14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
Read more

Management

Image
Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
Read more

Investment

Image
Investment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about investment in finance. For investment in macroeconomics, see Investment (macroeconomics). For other uses, see Investment (disambiguation). "Invest" redirects here. For the term in meteorology, see Invest (meteorology). This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( February 2017 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In general, to invest is to distribute money in the expectation of some benefit in the future – for example, investment in durable goods, in real estate by the service industry, in factories for manufacturing, in product development, and in research and development. However, this article focuses specifically on investment in financial
Read more