# Page 149

**Location:** Chapter 14, bonus exercises 1, 2 and 3

*Note*: part (d) of Exercise 1 cannot in fact be proven and has to be removed
from the exercise.

## Exercise solutions

*Note*: in the following, the fact that bird x sings is symbolised by
x\in S, with S the set of all singing birds.

### Exercise 1

Assuming the first three laws of Professor Byrd, one can proceed as follows:

(a) Either x\in S, in which case by Law 1 Pxx\in S, or x \notin S, so that by Law 2 Pxx \in S.

(b) Assume Py(Pyx) \in S: them either y\in S, in which case by Law 3 Pyx\in S, or y \notin S, so that by Law 2 Pyx\in S.

(c) Starting from the facts that Pxy\in S and Pyz \in S, two cases are possible: (i) x\in S, so that by Law 3 y \in S, which together with the second assumption leads by Law 3 to z \in S and then by Law 1 to Pxz\in S; or (ii) x\notin S, which immediately by Law 2 implies that, again, Pxz \in S.

(e) Given that Px(Pyz)\in S, either (a) x \in S or (b) x \notin S. In the first case, by Law 3 one has Pyz\in S: now, either (a1) y\in S, in which case by Law 3 again it is z \in S, hence by Law 1 Pxz\in S and subsequently Py(Pxz)\in S, or (a2) y \notin S, whereby immediately Py(Pxz)\in S. In case (b) above, instead, from x \notin S one deduces Pxz \in S by Law 2, hence directly through Law 1 the conclusion Py(Pxz)\in S can be reached.

### Exercise 2

Adopting a notation in which a bird x is *lively* if and only if
x \in \mathcal{L}, the three Laws given are stated as follows:

To prove that all birds are lively, one considers a generic bird x. By Law (c), \exists y such that (c1) Py(Pyx)\in\mathcal{L} and (c2) P(Pyx)y\in\mathcal{L}. By Law (a), from (c1) one finds that Pyx\in\mathcal{L}, which together with (c2) imply, by Law (b), that y\in\mathcal{L}. The latter two statements, in turn, again according to Law (b), lead to x \in \mathcal{L}.

### Exercise 3

The goal is to prove that Laws (a)-(c) given in the previous Exercise can be derived from Laws 1-4 of Problem 1, under the identification \mathcal{L} \equiv S, which concludes the reasoning.

To prove Law (a), first recall that if Px(Pxy)\in\mathcal{L}, then Px(Pxy)\in S. Then, either x\in S or s \notin S. In the first case, by Law 3 one finds that Pxy\in S; in the second case, immediately by Law 2 the fact that Pxy\in S follows. The statement can be expressed equivalently as Pxy\in\mathcal{L}.

Law (b) is a simple reformulation of Law 3 and requires no proof.

Law (c) can be proven as follows: first, by Law 4, \forall x, \exists y such that y\in S \Leftrightarrow Pyx \in S. Now two lines of reasoning are needed, one for each of the two statements asserted by Law (c).

It can be that y\in S or y\notin S. In the first case, one has that Pyx\in S by Law 4 and then that Py(Pyx)\in S by Law 1. In the second case, the first desired statement Py(Pyx)\in S follows directly by Law 2; finally, it can be stated as Py(Pyx)\in \mathcal{L}.

Again, consider the cases y\in S and y\notin S. In the former case, Law 1 yields directly P(Pyx)y \in S, while in the latter Law 4 gives Pyx\notin S, hence by Law 2 P(Pyx)y \in S. Again, the statement P(Pyx)y \in \mathcal{L} is equivalent to what has just been proved.