Assume that given three predicates are presented below:
$H(x)$: $x$ is a horse
$A(x)$: $x$ is an animal
$T(x,y)$: $x$ is a tail of $y$
Then, translate the following inference into an inference using predicate logic expressions and prove whether inference is valid or not (for instance, using natural deduction):
Horses are animals.
Horses' tails are tails of animals.
My thoughts: I am quite good at translating predicate logic expressions, but here I struggled to come up with formula for Horses' tails. My initial idea was to consider similar sentence such as "w is a tail of a horse" to form required inference, but it was not successful. Would be welcomed to hear your ideas about this task.
Best Answer
Hints:
"$x$ is a $P$'s tail" means that $x$ is a tail of $y$ and $y$ is a $P$.
"Horses' tails are tails of animals" means that for all tails $x$ and tail-bearers $y$, the tail being a horse's tail implies the tail being an animal's tail (where for "being a $P$'s tail" insert the above definition).
With the appropriate formalization of this paraphrase, it is possible to find a formal proof of the inference.