edited by
446 views

2 Answers

Best answer
1 votes
1 votes

No Gold is Silver.

Let $G(x) :$ $x$ is Gold

$S(x) :$ $x$ is Silver

Interpretation 1 :  For all $x$, If $x$ is Gold then it is Not silver.

$\forall x(G(x) \rightarrow \sim S(x))$

Interpretation 2 : There does not exist any God which is Silver. Or It is Not the case that there exists some $x$ which is Gold and Silver.

$\sim \exists x(G(x) \wedge S(x))$


Your Second Formula :  

$ \sim \forall x(G(x) \rightarrow  S(x))$ : It is Not the case that All the Gold are Silver. Or There exists some $x$ which is Gold but Not Silver. 

So, This is Not a Valid formula for "No Gold is Silver".

selected by
1 votes
1 votes
No gold is silver

Okay, considering the domain to be set of all items in this world

Let me frame the statement that there is at least(may be in the worst case the only one) one gold that is silver and it is

$\exists x(Gold(x) \land Silver(x))$

Now if I negate the above statement, it would mean that No Gold is silver

$\lnot \exists x(Gold(x) \land Silver(x))$

Following demorgan law I rewrite above expression as

$\forall x(\lnot Gold(x) \lor \lnot Silver(x))$

Using the fact that $p \rightarrow q \equiv \lnot p \lor q$

$\forall x(Gold(x) \rightarrow \lnot Silver(x))$

Related questions

1 votes
1 votes
0 answers
1
0 votes
0 votes
1 answer
4
tusharp asked Jul 12, 2018
269 views
If Mr.M is guilty, then no witness is lying unless he is afraid. X: Mr M is guiltyY: No witness is lyingZ: he is afraidtranslation: (X ^ ~Z) - Y. Is this correct? If yes ...