Logic in CS Autumn 2024

Problem Sheet 5
S. Krishna

1. Consider the formula φ = ∀x∃yR(x, y) ∧ ∃y∀x¬R(x, y). Show that φ is satisfiable over a
structure whose universe is infinite and countable.

Solution
Let N be the structure having as universe the set N of natural numbers and which
interprets R(x, y) as the successor relation, i.e, R(x, y) = {(n, n + 1) | n ∈ N}.
Observe that N |= φ, because every x ∈ N has a successor in N, making ∀x∃yR(x, y)
true. But 1 ∈ N is not the predecessor of any number in Na , making ∃y∀x¬R(x, y) true.

Follow-up Question. What property should R satisfy so that φ is not satisfiable

over any structure with infinite and countable universe?
a
Assuming the set of natural numbers start with 1 and not 0

2. Let τ be a signature consisting of a binary relation P and a unary relation F . Let F be a

structure consisting of a universe of people, P (x, y) is interpreted on F as “x is a parent of
y” and F (x) is interpreted as “x is female”. Given the τ -structure F,

(a) Define a formula φB (x, y) which says x is a brother of y

(b) Define a formula φA (x, y) which says x is an aunt of y
(c) Define a formula φC (x, y) which says x and y are cousins
(d) Define a formula φO (x) which says x is an only child
(e) Give an example of a family relationship that cannot be defined by a formula

Solution
(a) Assuming a brother is a distinct non-female who shares a parent in common with
you, we have:

φB (x, y) = ¬(x = y) ∧ ¬F (x) ∧ ∃z[P (z, x) ∧ P (z, y)]

(b) Assuming an aunt is a female who shares a parent in common with a parent of
yours, we have:

φA (x, y) = F (x) ∧ ∃z[P (z, y) ∧ ∃w(P (w, z) ∧ P (w, x))]

(c) Assuming cousins are distinct people who have distinct parents who have a parent

1
 in common, we can write:

φC (x, y) = ∃a∃b∃c[¬(a = b) ∧ P (a, x) ∧ P (b, y) ∧ P (c, a) ∧ P (c, b)] ∧ ¬(x = y)

(d) Assuming an only child is a person whose parents have no other children, we
have:
φO (x) = ∀y∀z[P (z, x) ∧ P (z, y) =⇒ x = y]

(e) Since the only relationships modeled here are parent-child relationships and
whether a person is female, a relationship such as marriage, i.e., φM (x, y), that
says x is married to y cannot be defined.

3. Consider the signature τ that has the binary functions +, ×. Let N be the structure over τ
having as universe the set N of natural numbers and which interprets +, × in the usual way.
Construct FO formulae Zero(x), One(x), Even(x), Odd(x) and Prime(x) using τ such that

• For any a ∈ N, N |= Zero(a) iff a is zero.

• For any a ∈ N, N |= One(a) iff a is one.
• For any a ∈ N, N |= Even(a) iff a is even.
• For any a ∈ N, N |= Odd(a) iff a is odd.
• For any a ∈ N, N |= Prime(a) iff a is prime.

Goldbach’s conjecture says that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.
Whether or not this is true is an open question in number theory. State Goldbach’s conjecture
as a FO-sentence over τ .

Solution
• Zero(a) = ∀x (a + x) = x

• One(a) = ∀x (a × x) = a

• Even(a) = ∃x (x + x) = a

• Odd(a) = ¬Even(a)

• Prime(a) = ¬(∃x∃y (¬One(x) ∧ ¬One(y) ∧ (x × y) = a)) ∧ ¬One(a)

We can also define a FO formula Two(a) such that for any a ∈ N, N |= Two(a) iff a is
two, as Two(a) = ∃x (One(x) ∧ (x + x) = a).
Using the above formulae, we can state Goldbach’s conjecture as:

Goldbach := ∀x (¬Zero(x)∧¬Two(x)∧Even(x) → ∃y∃z Prime(y)∧Prime(z)∧(y+z) = x)

2
4. A group is a structure (G, +, 0) where G is a set, 0 ∈ G is a special element called the identity
and + : G × G → G is a binary operation such that

(a) The operation + is associative

(b) The constant 0 is a right-identity for the operation +
(c) Every element in G has a right inverse: for each x ∈ G, we can find y ∈ G such that
x+y =0
(d) For any three elements x, y, z ∈ G, if x + z = y + z, then x = y

Using a signature τ = (c, op) where c is a constant and op is a binary function symbol write
(a)-(d) in FO.

Solution
We write the following formulae for each one of the above specifications:

(a) φa = ∀x∀y∀z [op(op(x, y), z) = op(x, op(y, z))]

(b) φb = ∀x (op(x, c) = x)

(c) φc = ∀x∃y (op(x, y) = c)

(d) φd = ∀x∀y∀z [(op(x, z) = op(y, z)) → x = y]

5. Let τ be a signature consisting of the binary function symbol + and a constant 0. We denote
by x + y the function +(x, y). Consider the following sentences:

φ1 := ∀x∀y∀z [(x + (y + z)) = ((x + y) + z)]

φ2 := ∀x [(x + 0) = x ∧ (0 + x) = x]
φ3 := ∀x [∃y (x + y = 0) ∧ ∃z(z + x) = 0]
Let ψ be the conjunction of the three sentences.

(a) Show that ψ is satisfiable by exhibiting a τ -structure.

(b) Show that ψ is not valid.
(c) Let α be the sentence ∀x∀y ((x + y) = (y + x)). Does α follow as a consequence of ψ?
That is, is it the case that ψ → α?
(d) Show that ψ is not equivalent to any of φ1 ∧ φ2 , φ2 ∧ φ3 and φ1 ∧ φ3 .

Solution
(a) A structure A that satisfies ψ can be one with u(A) = Z, 0A = 0 and +A = +Z .
(b) A structure that does not satisfy ψ can be one where u(A) = Z, 0A = 0 and
+A (x, y) = 2x + 3y. You can in fact verify that none of φ1 , φ2 , and φ3 are

3
 satisfied.

(c) An example of a structure A that does not satisfy ψ ⇒ α is one where u(A) =
{M ∈ Rn×n : |M | = ̸ 0} (the set of invertible real-valued n × n matrices), 0A = In ,
and +A (A, B) = AB. It can be verified that this structure satisfies ψ but not α
(i.e., it is not commutative).

(d) i. A structure A satisfying φ1 ∧ φ2 but not ψ is one where u(A) = Z, 0A = 1,

and +A (x, y) = xy.
ii. A structure A satisfying φ2 ∧ φ3 but not ψ is one where u(A) = N, 0A = 0,
and +A (x, y) = |x − y|.
iii. A structure A satisfying φ1 ∧ φ3 but not ψ is one where u(A) = Z, 0A = 1,
and +A (x, y) = x + y.

6. Explain the difference between the first order prefixes ∃x∀y∃z and ∀x∃y∀z.

Solution
The first one states that there exists some x in the universe such that for every y in
the universe there is some z in the universe (which may depend on y) such that the
statement holds.
The second one states that for every x in the universe, there is some y in the universe
(which may depend on x) such that for every z in the universe the statement holds.
The difference between the two is illustrated with an example in the following question.

7. Show that the sentences ∀x∃y∀z (E(x, y) ∧ E(x, z) ∧ E(y, z)) and ∃x∀y∃z (E(x, y) ∧ E(x, z) ∧
E(y, z)) are not equivalent by exhibiting a graph which satisfies one but not both of the
sentences.

Solution
The first sentence is actually satisfied only by the complete graph Kn , where EA =
u(A) × u(A). To see this, assume there is some (a, b) ∈ / EA . If ∀x∃y∀z [E(x, y) ∧
E(x, z) ∧ E(y, z)], then we can choose x = a, and then, for any y that we choose,
choosing z = b will cause E(x, y) ∧ E(x, z) ∧ E(y, z) to not be satisfied, since E(a, b) is
not satisfied. This structure will also clearly satisfy the second sentence.
For an example of a structure that satisfies the second sentence but not the first,
consider the following graph:

4
 1

2 3

u(A) = {1, 2, 3, 4}, EA = {(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (1, 4), (2, 4), (3, 4), (4, 4)}

8. For each n ∈ N, ∃≥n denotes a counting quantifier. Intuitively, ∃≥n means that “there exist
atleast n such that”. FO with counting quantifiers is the logic obtained by adding these
quantifiers (for each n ∈ N) to the fixed symbols of FO. The syntax and semantics are as
follows:

Syntax : For any formula φ of FO with counting quantifiers, ∃≥n x φ is also a formula.

Semantics : A |= ∃≥n x φ iff A |= φ(ai ) for each of n distinct elements a1 , a2 , . . . , an from

the universe u(A).

(a) Using counting quantifiers, define a sentence φ45 such that A |= φ45 iff |u(A)| = 45.
(b) Define a FO sentence φ (not using counting quantifiers) that is equivalent to the sentence
∃≥n x (x = x).

Solution
(a)
∃≥k x(x = x) ∧ ¬∃≥k+1 x(x = x)
is an FOL sentence with counting quantifiers that is true iff |u(A)| = k.

(b) ^
∃x1 · · · ∃xn ¬(xi = xj )
1≤i<j≤n

is an FOL sentence equivalent to

∃≥n x(x = x)

5
9. Write an FO formula that will evaluate to true only over a structure that has atleast n
elements and atmost m elements.

Solution

Using the counting quantifiers we discussed earlier, such a sentence would be ∃≥n x(x =
x) ∧ ¬∃≥m+1 x(x = x). Removing the counting quantifiers, we get the sentence:

   
^ ^
∃x1 · · · ∃xn ¬(xi = xj ) ∧ ¬ ∃x1 · · · ∃xm+1 ¬(xi = xj )
1≤i<j≤n 1≤i<j≤m+1

One can show that this sentence is equivalent to:

   
^ _
∃x1 · · · ∃xn ¬(xi = xj ) ∧ ∀x1 · · · ∀xm+1 (xi = xj )
1≤i<j≤n 1≤i<j≤m+1