5 thoughts on “Formalization Exercise

  1. Since it implies that there is a maximally dumb thing we are going to say on any given day, it’s not logically true.

  2. Well, we need that I’ll say at least one thing and that thing has an entry on the dumb scale. (If all I say on Tuesday is “ouch”,…) So hardly logically true. Of course, in my case, it is in fact true that for anything thing I said, I said an even dumber thing. And, I said at least one thing. Very talkative, I.

  3. For all d,x,z,y there exists z'[ {NOT(x)-said-(z)-onday-(d)} OR {(x)-said-(z’)-onday-(d) AND (z’)-dumber-(z)} AND {(NOT(x)-said-(y)-onday-(d)) OR (NOT(x)-said-(z’)-onday-(d) AND (y)-dumber-(z’))}]Would that be right? Regardless, the first Anonymous got it right without formalisation. An existence-claim can never be logically true in PL.

  4. “An existence-claim can never be logically true in PL.”Not so. (Ex) x = x is logically true.Revise that to: no interesting existence claim is logically true in predicate logic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *