# Why implication is used with Universal quantifier and not conjunction?

0 votes
744 views
Also why conjunction is used with Existential Quantifier and not implication?

I tried to understand the main reason behind the choice of implication or conjunction, but I haven't received the proper answer.

## 1 Answer

1 vote

In my opinion, all combinations make sense,

Implication:

$\forall{x}(P \to C)$: For all $x$, if $P$ is true then $C$ is also true.

$\exists{x}(P \to C)$: There exists atleast a $x$ such that if $P$ is true then $C$ is also true.

Conjunction:

$\forall{x}(P \wedge C)$: For all $x$, Both $P$ and $C$ are true.

$\exists{x}(P \wedge C)$: There exists atleast a $x$, such that both $P$ and $C$ are true.

However, if you will post specific example where you find problem/confusion, question will be more clear.

## Related questions

2 votes
1 answer
1
380 views
When should we use implication and when conjunction? For example in this question: https://gateoverflow.in/989/gate2006-26?show=188041#c188041 What is the difference in options B and D?
0 votes
1 answer
2
223 views
What would be the execution order of the below statement? $A \implies B \implies C$
0 votes
0 answers
3
795 views
In the question whether this statement is a tautology ((A ∨ B) → C)) ≡ ((A → C) ∨ (B → C)) , If I take first part ((A ∨ B) → C)) as P and second part ((A → C) ∨ (B → C)) as Q , do I need to prove P-->Q is true? or both P-->Q and Q-->P as true? I am confused about the ≡ symbol.
0 votes
1 answer
4
304 views
"Every Lion Drinks Coffee'. UoD : Animals The equivalent First Order Logic statement for the above statment is $\forall x(Cat(x) )\rightarrow Coffee(x))$ Lets consider in UoD (animals), let there may be a CAT, TIGER ..etc and consider below statment Tiger Drinks Coffee. ... , if an animal is not a lion, then it shouldn't drink coffee??. if its true then the first order logic statement is valid.