Proving the predicate formula below…
$\forall x((T(x)) \Rightarrow S \equiv \forall x(T(x) \Rightarrow S) $
This is my logic, may i get some suggestions on improvement or errors if i am doing anything wrong? I just started out on proving so would appreciate it if i could get any help with it.
First scenario: Suppose S is true : Suppose $\forall x ((T(x)) \Rightarrow S $ to be true, all of values in T(x) must be true, therefore, $\forall x(T(x) \Rightarrow S) $ is true as well since it only needs one value of x to be true.
Second scenario: Suppose S is true : Suppose $\forall x ((T(x)) \Rightarrow S $ to be false, it means only some cases of T(x) is true. However, if this logic applies to the $\forall x((Tx) \Rightarrow S) $, as long as some cases come true, this predicate clause would be true, which is contradictory to the first clause.
Therefore, the two formulas are not logically equivalent.
Best Answer
Correct. The statements are not semantically equivalent, as your reasoning shows.
Therefore $\forall x~(T(x)\to S)$ entails $(\forall x~T(x)) \to S$, but it is not entailed by that.