If you look back at the Check your Understanding questions in SectionΒ 3.1, you should notice that both \(\forall x\in D, P(x)\) and \(\forall x\in D, \sim P(x)\) were false, which means they are not negations of each other. Similarly, both \(\exists x\in D, P(x)\) and \(\exists x \in D, \sim P(x)\) were true. In general, the two statements wonβt necessarily have the same truth values, but the examples were chosen to make sure we can see that they are not negations of each other.
We can think of negation as switching the quantifier and negating \(P(x)\text{,}\) but it will be really helpful if we can understand why this is the negation. Thinking about negating a βfor allβ statement, we need the statement to not be true for all things, which means it must be false for something, Thus, there exists something making \(\sim P(x)\) true. Thinking about negating a βthere existsβ statement, we need there not to exist anything making \(P(x)\) true, which means \(P(x)\) must be false for everything. Thus, everything makes \(\sim P(x)\) true.
Many of our quantified statements may have predicates involving other logical connectives. So it is going to be important to remember how to negate "and"s, "or"s, and "if...then"s. The following summarizes the rules we have already seen for negating statements with connectives
Recall from SectionΒ 2.2 the contapositive of \(p\rightarrow q\) is \(\sim q\rightarrow \sim p\text{.}\) We can use this to define the contrapositive of a universal conditional statement.
The relationship between βfor allβ and βthere existsβ can be used to show some surprising things. What happens if our domain, \(D\text{,}\) has nothing in it? In particular, let \(D=\emptyset\text{,}\) the empty set. Is \(\forall x\in D, P(x)\) true or false? Well, letβs look at the negation: \(\exists x\in D, \sim P(x)\text{.}\) Now the negation must be false since \(D\) has nothing in it, so there canβt exist something in \(D\) making \(\sim P(x)\) true. Since the negation is false, the original statement is true! We say \(\forall x\in D, P(x)\) is vacuously true.
Consider the statement βFor all llamas, \(L\text{,}\) in Discrete Math, \(L\) is getting an A.β The negation is βThere exists a llama, \(L\text{,}\) in Discrete Math, such that \(L\) is not getting an A.β Since no such llama exists, the negation is false. Making the original true. So every llama in Discrete is getting an A.
As one additional note, it can be helpful in deciding if your negation is correct by finding the truth value of both the original and the negation. They should have opposite values. Similarly, if you need to determine the truth value of a complex statement, it might be easier to find the truth value of the negation.
Consider the following sequence of digits: 2300204. A person claims that all of the 1βs in the sequence are to the left of all of the 0βs in the sequence. Is this true? Justify your answer.