There are two ways to translate “exactly” into FOL, a long way and a short way.

There are two ways to translate “exactly” into FOL, a long way and a short way.

Let’s say we want to write: “There are exactly two dogs.”

The long way uses the work we’ve already done: if we say there are * at least *two dogs, and

The long way looks like this:

∃x∃y(D(x)&D(y)&~x=y) & ∀x∀y∀z((D(x)&D(y)&D(z))→(x=y v x=z v y=z))

It is a wide-scope conjunction.

But you can tell from all the repetition that there’s a more efficient way of writing it.

For the short way, we still need two existential quantifiers. After all, exactly two is going to require the existence claims of two things.

But for the “at most” part, we can use one universal quantifier * inside the scope* of the existentials. I call this ∀ the

It looks like this:

∃x∃y(D(x)&D(y)&~x=y & ∀z(D(z)→(x=z v y=z)))

This just says: there exist two dogs (at least), and if anything is a dog, it has to be one of those two (hence exactly two).

**Exactly n:** takes n existentials and 1 universal.

So on the short way, to say “exactly * n*“, we need

Login

Accessing this textbook requires a login. Please enter your credentials below!