0 votes

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.

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