Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic

With Question/Answer Animations

Summary
Predicate Logic (First-Order Logic (FOL), Predicate
Calculus)
The Language of Quantifiers
Logical Equivalences
Nested Quantifiers
Translation from Predicate Logic to English
Translation from English to Predicate Logic
Section 1.4
Section Summary
Predicates
Variables
Quantifiers
Universal Quantifier
Existential Quantifier
Negating Quantifiers
De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
Translating English to Logic
 Extending Propositional Logic
Can statements with variables, e.g. 0 4 implies √ < 2
be turned into (formal) propositions?

Need propositional functions (based on predicates)

If “All men are mortal” and “Socrates is a man”

does it follow that “Socrates is mortal?”

Need to learn how to create and work with propositions

expressed using ALL, EVERY, SOME, etc.

We will also discuss some rules of inference with quantifies.

Introducing Predicate Logic
Predicate logic uses the following new features:
Variables: e.g. x, y, z
Predicates (P): e.g. is mortal, can not be sent, equals 10, is green.
Propositional functions: P(x), Q(x,y), M(z)
Quantifiers (see later)
Propositional functions combine variables and predicates e.g.
P(x) = x ispredicate
mortal P
Q(y) = y is greater than 4
predicate Q
( that is, y>4 )
Propositional function becomes a proposition when variables are
replaced by elements from their domain (denoted by U), e.g.
P(Socrates) = Socrates is mortal
Q(5) = 5 is greater than 4
Q(2) = 2 is greater than 4
propositions
Propositional Functions
Propositional functions become propositions (and have
truth values) when their variables are each replaced by a
value from the domain (or when bound by a quantifier, see later).
The statement P(x) is said to be the value of the
propositional function P at x.

E.g., let P(x) denote “x > 0” and the domain to be the

integers. Then:
P(-3) is false.
P(0) is false.
P(3) is true.

Often the domain is denoted by U.

So, in the example above U is the integers.
Examples of Propositional
Functions
Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and U (for all three variables) be
the integers. Find these truth values:
R(2,-1,5)

R(3,4,7)

R(x, 3, z)

Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the integers.

Find these truth values:
Q(2,-1,3)

Q(3,4,7)

Q(x, 3, z)
Examples of Propositional
Functions
Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and U (for all three variables) be
the integers. Find these truth values:
R(2,-1,5)
Solution: F
R(3,4,7)
Solution: T
R(x, 3, z)
Solution: Not a Proposition
Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the integers.
Find these truth values:
Q(2,-1,3)
Solution: T
Q(3,4,7)
Solution: F
Q(x, 3, z)
Solution: Not a Proposition
Compound Expressions
Connectives from propositional logic carry over to
predicate logic.
If P(x) denotes “x > 0,” find these truth values:
P(3) ∨ P -1)
P(3) ∧ P -1)
P(3) → P -1)
P(-3) → P -1)
Expressions with variables are not propositions and
therefore do not have truth values. For example,
P(3) ∧ P y)
P(x) → P y)
Compound Expressions
Connectives from propositional logic carry over to
predicate logic.
If P(x) denotes “x > 0,” find these truth values:
P(3) ∨ P -1) Solution: T
P(3) ∧ P -1) Solution: F
P(3) → P -1) Solution: F
P(-3) → P -1) Solution: T
Expressions with variables are not propositions and
therefore do not have truth values. For example,
P(3) ∧ P y)
P(x) → P y)
NOTE: instead of specifying values of variables, one can convert
a propositional function into a proposition using quantifiers (see next slide)
 Quantifiers Charles Peirce (1839-1914)

- an alternative way to convert

propositional functions into propositions
Example: propositional function P(x) : x is mortal
variable predicate P

Proposition(s): Socrates is mortal (specifying value of variable x)

P(Socrates)

All men are mortal (quantifier “for all”)

For all x, P(x)

Some men are mortal (quantifier “for some”)

For some x, P(x)
 Quantifiers Charles Peirce (1839-1914)

- an alternative way to convert

propositional functions into propositions
Example: propositional function P(x) : x is mortal
variable predicate P

Proposition(s): Socrates is mortal (specifying value of variable x)

P(Socrates)

All men are mortal (quantifier ∀ - “for all”)

∀ x P(x)

Some men are mortal (quantifier ∃ - “for some”)

∃ x P(x)
 Quantifiers Charles Peirce (1839-1914)

- an alternative way to convert

propositional functions into propositions
Example: propositional function Q(y) = y > 4
variable predicate P

Proposition(s): 5>4 (specifying value of variable y)

Q(5)

∀y y>4 (quantifier ∀ - “for all”)

for all y, Q(y)

∃y y>4 (quantifier ∃ - “for some”)

for some y, Q(y)
Quantifiers Charles Peirce (1839-1914)

We need quantifiers to express the meaning of English words

including all and some:
“All men are Mortal.”
“Some cats do not have fur.”
The two most important quantifiers are:
Universal Quantifier, “For all,” symbol: ∀
Existential Quantifier, “There exists,” symbol: ∃
We write as in ∀x P(x) and ∃x P(x).
∀x P(x) asserts P(x) for every x in the domain.
∃x P(x) asserts P(x) for some x in the domain.
The quantifiers are said to bind the variable x in these expressions.
Universal Quantifier ∀
∀x P(x) is read as “for all x, P(x)” or “for every x, P(x)”

Examples:
1) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then
proposition ∀x P(x) is false.
2) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the positive integers, then
proposition ∀x P(x) is true.
3) If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then
proposition ∀ x P(x) is false.
Existential Quantifier ∃
∃x P(x) is read as “for some x, P(x)”, or “there is an x such
that P(x),” or “there exists x such that P(x),” or “for at least
one x, P(x).”

Examples:
1. If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then ∃x P(x) is
true. It is also true if U is the positive integers.
2. If P(x) denotes “x < 0” and U is the positive integers, then
proposition ∃x P(x) is false.
3. If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then
proposition ∃x P(x) is true.
Thinking about Quantifiers
When the domain (of variable) is finite, we can think of quantification
as looping through the elements of the domain.

To evaluate ∀x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.

If at every step P(x) is true, then ∀x P(x) is true.
If at a step P(x) is false, then ∀x P(x) is false and the loop terminates.

To evaluate ∃x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.

If at some step, P(x) is true, then ∃x P(x) is true and the loop terminates.
If the loop ends without finding an x where P(x) is true, then ∃x P(x) is false.

Even if the domains are infinite, we can still think of the quantifiers this
fashion, but the loops will not terminate in some cases.
Properties of Quantifiers
The truth value of ∃x P x) and ∀ x P x) depend on both
the propositional function P x) and on the domain U.
Examples:
1. If U is the positive integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then ∃x P x) is ?, and ∀ x P x) is ?.
2. If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then ∃x P x) is ?, and ∀ x P x) is ?.
3. If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement
“x > 2”, then ∃x P x) is ?, and ∀ x P x) is ? . But if P(x) is
the statement “x < 2”, then ∃x P x) is ?, and ∀ x P x) is ?
Properties of Quantifiers
The truth value of ∃x P x) and ∀ x P x) depend on both
the propositional function P x) and on the domain U.
Examples:
1. If U is all integers and P(x) is the statement “x < 2”,
then ∃x P x) is true, but ∀ x P x) is false.
1. If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then both ∃x P x) and ∀ x P x) are true.
2. If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement
“x > 2”, then both ∃x P x) and ∀ x P x) are true. But if
P(x) is the statement “x < 2”, then both ∃x P x) and
∀ x P x) are false.
Precedence of Quantifiers
The quantifiers ∀ and ∃ have higher precedence than
all the logical operators.
For example, ∀x P x) ∨ Q x) means ∀x P x))∨ Q x)
∀x P x) ∨ Q x)) means something different.
Unfortunately, often people write ∀x P x) ∨ Q x) when
they mean ∀ x P x) ∨ Q x)).
Translating from English to Logic
Example 1: Translate the following sentence into predicate
logic: “Every student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Translating from English to Logic
Example 1: Translate the following sentence into predicate
logic: “Every student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class, define a
propositional function J(x) denoting “x has taken a course in
Java” and translate as ∀x J x).
Solution 2: But if U is all people, also define a propositional
function S(x) denoting “x is a student in this class” and
translate as ∀x S x)→ J x)).

∀x S x) ∧ J x)) is not correct. What does it mean?

Translating from English to Logic
Example 2: Translate the following sentence into predicate
logic: “Some student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Translating from English to Logic
Example 2: Translate the following sentence into predicate
logic: “Some student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class, translate as
∃x J x)
Solution 2: But if U is all people, then translate as
∃x S x) ∧ J x))

∃x S x)→ J x)) is not correct. What does it mean?

Returning to the Socrates Example
Introduce the propositional functions Man(x) denoting
“x is a man” and Mortal(x) denoting “x is mortal.”
Specify the domain U as all people.
The two premises are:

The conclusion is:

NOTE: This is a valid argument form (“universal modus ponens”) combining

“universal instantiation” (Table 2 on p.76) (for any c in U)
and “modus ponens” (see previous slides)
Equivalences in Predicate Logic
Statements involving predicates and quantifiers are
logically equivalent if and only if they have the same
truth value for…
every predicate substituted into these statements
and
every domain used for the variables in the expressions.

The notation S ≡T indicates that S and T are logically

equivalent.

Example: ∀x ¬¬S x) ≡ ∀x S x)
Thinking about Quantifiers as
Conjunctions and Disjunctions
If the domain is finite, a universally quantified proposition is
equivalent to a conjunction of propositions without quantifiers
and an existentially quantified proposition is equivalent to a
disjunction of propositions without quantifiers.
If U consists of the integers 1,2, and 3:

Even if the domains are infinite, you can still think of the
quantifiers in this fashion, but the equivalent expressions
without quantifiers will be infinitely long.
Negating Quantified Expressions
Consider ∀x J x)
“Every student in your class has taken a course in Java.”
Here J x) is “x has taken a course in Java” and
the domain is students in your class.
Negating the original statement gives “It is not the case
that every student in your class has taken Java.” This
implies that “There is a student in your class who has
not taken Java.”
Symbolically ¬∀x J x) and ∃x ¬J x) are equivalent
Negating Quantified Expressions
(continued)
Now Consider ∃ x J x)
“There is a student in this class who has taken a course in Java.”
Where J x) is “x has taken a course in Java.”
Negating the original statement gives “It is not the case
that there is a student in this class who has taken Java.”
This implies that “Every student in this class has not taken
Java”
Symbolically ¬∃ x J x) and ∀ x ¬J x) are equivalent
De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
The rules for negating quantifiers are:

The reasoning in the table shows that:

These are important. You will use these.

Translation from English to Logic
Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Mexico.”

2. “Every student in this class has visited Canada or

Mexico.”
Translation from English to Logic
Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Mexico.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x has visited Mexico” and
S(x) denote “x is a student in this class,” and U be all
people.
∃x S x) ∧ M x))
2. “Every student in this class has visited Canada or
Mexico.”
Solution: Add C(x) denoting “x has visited Canada.”
∀x S x)→ M x)∨C x)))
Some Fun with Translating from
English into Logical Expressions
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “Everything is a fleegle”
Some Fun with Translating from
English into Logical Expressions
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “Everything is a fleegle”

Solution: ∀x F x)
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “Nothing is a snurd.”
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“Nothing is a snurd.”

Solution: ¬∃x S x) What is this equivalent to?

Solution: ∀x ¬ S x)
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “All fleegles are snurds.”
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“All fleegles are snurds.”

Solution: ∀x F x)→ S x))

Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “Some fleegles are thingamabobs.”
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“Some fleegles are thingamabobs.”

Solution: ∃x F x) ∧ T x))
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “No snurd is a thingamabob.”
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“No snurd is a thingamabob.”

Solution: ¬∃x S x) ∧ T x)) What is this equivalent to?

Solution: ∀x ¬S x) ∨ ¬T x))
Another equivalent solution ∀x S x) → ¬T x))
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “If any fleegle is a snurd then it is also a
thingamabob.”
Translation (cont)
U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“If any fleegle is a snurd then it is also a thingamabob.”

Solution: ∀x F x) ∧ S x))→ T x))

System Specification Example
Predicate logic is used for specifying properties that systems must
satisfy.
For example, translate into predicate logic:
“Every mail message larger than one megabyte will be compressed.”
“If a user is active, at least one network link will be available.”
Decide on predicates and domains (left implicit here) for the variables:
Let L(m, y) be “Mail message m is larger than y megabytes.”
Let C(m) denote “Mail message m will be compressed.”
Let A(u) represent “User u is active.”
Let S(n, x) represent “Network link n is state x.
Now we have:
 Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
Lewis Carroll Example (AKA Lewis Caroll)
(1832-1898)
1. “All lions are fierce.”
2. “Some lions do not drink coffee.”
3. “Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee.”
Here is one way to translate these statements to predicate
logic. Let P(x), Q(x), and R(x) be the propositional
functions “x is a lion,” “x is fierce,” and “x drinks coffee,”
respectively.
1. ∀x P x)→ Q x))
2. ∃x P x) ∧ ¬R x))
3. ∃x Q x) ∧ ¬R x))
Later we will see how to prove that 3 (the conclusion)
follows from 1 and 2 (the premises).
Section 1.5
Section Summary
Nested Quantifiers
Order of Quantifiers
Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English
Translating Mathematical Statements into Statements
involving Nested Quantifiers.
Translated English Sentences into Logical Expressions.
Negating Nested Quantifiers.
Nested Quantifiers
Nested quantifiers are often necessary to express the
meaning of sentences in English as well as important
concepts in computer science and mathematics.
Example: “Every real number has an inverse” is
∀x ∃y x + y = 0)
where the domains of x and y are the real numbers.
We can also think of nested propositional functions:
∀x ∃y x + y = 0) can be viewed as ∀x Q x) where Q x) is
∃y P x, y) where P x, y) is x + y = 0)
Thinking of Nested Quantification
Nested Loops
To see if ∀x∀yP x,y) is true, loop through the values of x :
At each step, loop through the values for y.
If for some pair of x andy, P x,y) is false, then ∀x ∀yP x,y) is false and both the
outer and inner loop terminate.
∀x ∀y P x,y) is true if the outer loop ends after stepping through each x.

To see if ∀x ∃yP x,y) is true, loop through the values of x:

At each step, loop through the values for y.
The inner loop ends when a pair x and y is found such that P x, y) is true.
If no y is found such that P x, y) is true the outer loop terminates as ∀x ∃yP x,y)
has been shown to be false.
∀x ∃y P x,y) is true if the outer loop ends after stepping through each x.

If the domains of the variables are infinite, then this process can not
actually be carried out.
Order of Quantifiers
Examples:
1. Let P x,y) be the statement “x + y = y + x.” Assume
that U is the real numbers. Then ∀x ∀yP x,y) and
∀y ∀xP x,y) have the same truth value.
2. Let Q x,y) be the statement “x + y = 0.” Assume that
U is the real numbers. Then ∀x ∃yP x,y) is ?, but
∃y ∀xP x,y) is ?.
Order of Quantifiers
Examples:
1. Let P x,y) be the statement “x + y = y + x.” Assume
that U is the real numbers. Then ∀x ∀yP x,y) and
∀y ∀xP x,y) have the same truth value.
2. Let Q x,y) be the statement “x + y = 0.” Assume that
U is the real numbers. Then ∀x ∃yP x,y) is true, but
∃y ∀xP x,y) is false.
Questions on Order of Quantifiers
Example 1: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x ∙ y = 0
What is the truth value of the following:
1. ∀x∀yP x,y)

2. ∀x∃yP x,y)

3. ∃x∀y P x,y)

4. ∃x ∃ y P x,y)
Questions on Order of Quantifiers
Example 1: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x ∙ y = 0
What is the truth value of the following:
1. ∀x∀yP x,y)
Answer: False
2. ∀x∃yP x,y)
Answer: True
3. ∃x∀y P x,y)
Answer: True
4. ∃x ∃ y P x,y)
Answer: True
Questions on Order of Quantifiers
Example 2: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x / y = 1
What is the truth value of the following:
1. ∀x∀yP x,y)

2. ∀x∃yP x,y)

3. ∃x∀y P x,y)

4. ∃x ∃ y P x,y)
Questions on Order of Quantifiers
Example 2: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x / y = 1
What is the truth value of the following:
1. ∀x∀yP x,y)
Answer: False
2. ∀x∃yP x,y)
Answer: False
3. ∃x∀y P x,y)
Answer: False
4. ∃x ∃ y P x,y)
Answer: True
Quantifications of Two Variables
Statement A When A is true? When A is false? (¬A is true)

P(x,y) is true for every pair There is a pair x, y for

x,y. which P(x,y) is false.

For every x there is a y for There is an x such that

which P(x,y) is true. P(x,y) is false for every y.
There is an x for which For every x there is a y for
P(x,y) is true for every y. which P(x,y) is false.
There is a pair x, y for P(x,y) is false for every pair
which P(x,y) is true. x,y
Translating Nested Quantifiers into
English
Example 1: Translate the statement
∀x C x )∨ ∃y C y ) ∧ F x, y)))
where C(x) is “x has a computer,” and F(x,y) is “x and y are
friends,” and the domain for both x and y consists of all
students in your school.
Solution: Every student in your school has a computer or has a
friend who has a computer.

Example 2: Translate the statement

∃x∀y ∀z F x, y)∧ F x,z) ∧ y Cz))→¬F y,z))
Solution: There is a student none of whose friends are also
friends with each other.
Translating Mathematical
Statements into Predicate Logic
Example : Translate “The sum of two positive integers
is always positive” into a logical expression.
Translating Mathematical
Statements into Predicate Logic
Example : Translate “The sum of two positive integers
is always positive” into a logical expression.
Solution:
1. Quantifiers and domains should be made explicit as in:
“For every two integers, if these integers are both positive, then
the sum of these integers is positive.”
2. Introduce variables x and y:
“For every integers x and y, if x>0 and y>0, then x+y>0.”
3. Using symbols for connectives and quantifiers we get
∀x ∀ y x D 0)∧ y D 0)→ x + y D 0))
where the domain for x and y are the integers
Translating English into Logical
Expressions Example
Example: Use quantifiers to express the statement
“There is a woman who has taken a flight on every
airline in the world.”
Translating English into Logical
Expressions Example
Example: Use quantifiers to express the statement
“There is a woman who has taken a flight on every
airline in the world.”
Solution:
1. Let P w,f) be “w has taken f ” and
Q f,a) be “f is a flight on airline a .”
2. The domain of w is all women, the domain of f is all
flights, and the domain of a is all airlines.
3. Then the statement can be expressed as:
∃w ∀a ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a))
___________
order of quantifies
is very important! Try changing it and see what that means
 Negating Nested Quantifiers
∃w ∀a ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a))

Use quantifiers to express the statement that “There does not exist a woman
who has taken a flight on every airline in the world.”
¬∃w ∀a ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a))

Now use De Morgan’s Laws to move the negation as far inwards as possible.

¬∃w ∀a ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a))

1. ∀w ¬ ∀a ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a)) by De Morgan’s for ∃
2. ∀w ∃ a ¬ ∃f P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a)) by De Morgan’s for ∀
3. ∀w ∃ a ∀f ¬ P w,f ) ∧ Q f,a)) by De Morgan’s for ∃
4. ∀w ∃ a ∀f ¬ P w,f ) ∨ ¬ Q f,a)) by De Morgan’s for ∧.

Can you translate the result back into English?

“For every woman there is an airline such that for all flights, this
woman has not taken that flight or that flight is not on this airline”
Questions on Translation from
English
Choose the obvious predicates and express in predicate logic.
Example 1: “Brothers are siblings.”

Example 2: “Siblinghood is symmetric.”

Example 3: “Everybody loves somebody.”

Example 4: “There is someone who is loved by everyone.”

Example 5: “There is someone who loves someone.”

Example 6: “Everyone loves himself”

Questions on Translation from
B(x,y): x and y are brothers
English S(x,y): x and y are siblings
L(x,y): x loves y
Choose the obvious predicates and express in predicate logic.
Example 1: “Brothers are siblings.”
Solution: ∀x ∀y (B(x,y) → S x,y))
Example 2: “Siblinghood is symmetric.”
Solution: ∀x ∀y (S(x,y) → S y,x))
Example 3: “Everybody loves somebody.”
Solution: ∀x ∃y L(x,y)
Example 4: “There is someone who is loved by everyone.”
Solution: ∃y ∀x L(x,y)
Example 5: “There is someone who loves someone.”
Solution: ∃x ∃y L(x,y)
Example 6: “Everyone loves himself”
Solution: ∀x L(x,x)
Some Questions about Quantifiers
Can you switch the order of quantifiers? Depends
Is this a valid equivalence?
Solution: Yes! The left and the right side will always have the same truth value.
The order in which x and y are picked does not matter.
Is this a valid equivalence?
Solution: No! The left and the right side may have different truth values for
some propositional functions for P. Try “x + y = 0” for P(x,y) with U being the
integers. The order in which the values of x and y are picked does matter.

Can you distribute quantifiers over logical connectives? Depends

Is this a valid equivalence?
Solution: Yes! The left and the right side will always have the same truth value
no matter what propositional functions are denoted by P(x) and Q(x).
Is this a valid equivalence?
Solution: No! The left and the right side may have different truth values. Pick
“x is a fish” for P(x) and “x has scales” for Q(x) with the domain of discourse being
all animals. Then the left side is false, because there are some fish that do not
have scales. But the right side is true since not all animals are fish.