Body: <p>I want to formulate the following sentence using FOL; I want also to know whether there any contradictions in it, or if it is consistent.</p>
  
  <p>Assuming human relations are binary:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>All Human Relations are Utilitarian (Human relations are Utilitarian
    only when people in those relations are selfish and calculative).
    I am a human. People are Humans. Unselfish people are nice. Therefore, I am nice.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-02T08:24:31.243Z
Comments.Text: There's a contradiction: either all relations are utilitarian, or they are not; but not both. The second sentence thus contradicts the first, unless all people are selfish and calculative. And in the remaining sentences you establish that there is at least one person that is not selfish.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Oliver Mason
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-02T11:33:35.513Z
Comments.Text: 1. ∀ r HumanRelations(r) ->  Utilitarian(r)
  2. ∃ r Utilitarian(r)-> Selfish(People(p,r)) ∧ Calculative(People(p,r))
  3. Human(I)
  4. ∃ p People(p) - > Human(p)
  5. ~Selfish(p) -> Nice(p)
  6. Nice(I) , can someone verify?
Comments.UserDisplayName: ammu
Tags: <logic><knowledge-representation>
Title: Formulation of a sentence using FOL
UserDisplayName: ammu
ThreadText: # Formulation of a sentence using FOL
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-02)
  
  I want to formulate the following sentence using FOL; I want also to know whether there any contradictions in it, or if it is consistent.
  
  Assuming human relations are binary:
  
  > All Human Relations are Utilitarian (Human relations are Utilitarian
  > only when people in those relations are selfish and calculative).
  > I am a human. People are Humans. Unselfish people are nice. Therefore, I am nice.
  
  **Tags:** logic, knowledge-representation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: There's a contradiction: either all relations are utilitarian, or they are not; but not both. The second sentence thus contradicts the first, unless all people are selfish and calculative. And in the remaining sentences you establish that there is at least one person that is not selfish.  
  > **username_0**: 1. ∀ r HumanRelations(r) ->  Utilitarian(r) 2. ∃ r Utilitarian(r)-> Selfish(People(p,r)) ∧ Calculative(People(p,r)) 3. Human(I) 4. ∃ p People(p) - > Human(p) 5. ~Selfish(p) -> Nice(p) 6. Nice(I) , can someone verify?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  