Unfortunately no. You have made the mistake of using For all followed by and. Now this will only be true if all elements in the domain of X are houses. Otherwise the predicate House(x) will be False and For all X will only be true if House(X) is true for all values of X.
The translation of your prolog sentence is: There exists someone that owns something that is not a house. This means that he can still own something that is a house.
Yes, your sentence is translated to not everybody owns a house which is the same as somebody doesn't own a house. If you follow the rules of moving the not to inside, you'd end up with the same sentence I reached. So, both are equivalent.
Yes, this is correct and if you follow the rules of moving the not you inserted inside, you'd end up with the same sentence I reached. So, both are equivalent.
What you wrote means that There exists a house that Mohamed does not own(So there may me another house that he owns.) This is different from Mohamed does not own a house. You should here say that there does not exist any house that Mohamed owns(Notice that "not" came before exist.)
22:20 why u don't say evey object which isn't owned by Ahmed isn't a house ?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you want to say that every object that IS OWNED by Ahmed isn't a house, this is valid yes.
At 14:12, could it be: Ax ( Ey ( Own(y, x) ^ House(x) ) )?
Unfortunately no. You have made the mistake of using For all followed by and. Now this will only be true if all elements in the domain of X are houses. Otherwise the predicate House(x) will be False and For all X will only be true if House(X) is true for all values of X.
For somebody doesn't own a house
Can I say Ex (Ey own(x,y) and not house(y))
The translation of your prolog sentence is: There exists someone that owns something that is not a house. This means that he can still own something that is a house.
@@abouelhamayed how can he own something which is a house?
somebody does not own a house
Could it be ~(Ax (Ey own(x,y) ^ House(y)))
Yes, your sentence is translated to not everybody owns a house which is the same as somebody doesn't own a house. If you follow the rules of moving the not to inside, you'd end up with the same sentence I reached. So, both are equivalent.
Can I say somebody owns a house
Ex Ey (own(x,y) and house(y))
Yes, this is correct
*somebody does not own a house
Can I say Ex (~Ey own(x,y) ^ House(y))
Yes, this is correct and if you follow the rules of moving the not you inserted inside, you'd end up with the same sentence I reached. So, both are equivalent.
* Mohamed doesn't own a house
why don't we do this :
Ey (not own(Mohamed , y ) ^ House(y) )
What you wrote means that There exists a house that Mohamed does not own(So there may me another house that he owns.) This is different from Mohamed does not own a house. You should here say that there does not exist any house that Mohamed owns(Notice that "not" came before exist.)