PYQ Vault

MHT-CET Maths · Mathematical Logic

Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

Negating a compound statement means pushing the not inwards: and becomes or, or becomes and, a conditional becomes a conjunction, and a quantifier flips.

Why this matters

This is the cheapest block in the chapter — 21 PYQs at just 10% HARD, well under the chapter's 23% — and that is precisely why it is worth drilling to reflex. Nothing here is conceptually hard; every mark lost is lost mechanically, by forgetting to flip a connective or by negating an implication as another implication. Three rewrites cover almost the whole subtopic, and the paper tests them year after year in the same four shapes.

Concept 1 of 5: De Morgan Laws for And and Or

To deny that two things both happened, you only need to deny one of them — so the negation of an AND is an OR. To deny that either happened, you must deny both — so the negation of an OR is an AND. The connective always flips.

Definition

Pushing a negation through a conjunction or disjunction flips the connective and negates each part:

  • ∼(p∧q)≡  ∼p∨∼q\sim(p \wedge q) \equiv \;\sim p \vee \sim q
  • ∼(p∨q)≡  ∼p∧∼q\sim(p \vee q) \equiv \;\sim p \wedge \sim q

Apply them outermost first, then repeat on whatever is left inside. A double negation cancels: ∼(∼p)≡p\sim(\sim p) \equiv p.

De Morgan laws

∼(p∧q)≡  ∼p∨∼q∼(p∨q)≡  ∼p∧∼q∼(∼p)≡p\sim(p \wedge q) \equiv\; \sim p \vee \sim q \qquad \sim(p \vee q) \equiv\; \sim p \wedge \sim q \qquad \sim(\sim p) \equiv p
  • ∼\simnegation — distributes inwards, flipping the connective as it goes

Worked example

Write the negation of (p∨∼q)∧r(p \vee \sim q) \wedge r.
Practise this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps

The same idea in a real exam question:

MHT-CET · 2021 · May Shift 1 · Q115Easy

Example 1 · Mathematical Logic · Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

The negation of the statement '7 is greater than 4 or 6 is less than 7'.

Negating both parts but keeping the connective

∼(p∧q)\sim(p \wedge q) is NOT ∼p∧∼q\sim p \wedge \sim q. The connective must flip. This is the most common single error in the chapter, and the distractor list always contains the unflipped version.

Concept 2 of 5: Negating a Conditional

A conditional is a promise, and it is broken in exactly one way: the antecedent happens and the consequent does not. So denying a conditional asserts the antecedent and denies the consequent — the result is an AND, never another conditional.

Definition

∼(p→q)≡p∧∼q\sim(p \to q) \equiv p \wedge \sim q.

  • The result is a conjunction, because the one false row of p→qp \to q is p=T,  q=Fp = T,\; q = F.
  • The arrow disappears entirely. Any option that still contains an arrow is wrong by shape alone.
  • For a nested conditional, push the negation in one layer at a time.

Negation of an implication

∼(p→q)≡p∧∼q\sim(p \to q) \equiv p \wedge \sim q
  • ppthe antecedent — asserted, not negated
  • ∼q\sim qthe consequent — negated

Worked example

Write the negation of p∨(q→∼r)p \vee (q \to \sim r).
Practise this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps

The same idea in a real exam question:

MHT-CET · 2024 · 9th May Shift 1 · Q103Moderate

Example 2 · Mathematical Logic · Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

The negation of the statement (p∧q)→(∼p∨r)(p\wedge q)\to(\sim p\vee r) is

Negating an implication as another implication

The tempting wrong answer is ∼p→∼q\sim p \to \sim q, which negates both parts and keeps the arrow. It is not the negation — it is the inverse, and it is not even equivalent to the original. The negation has no arrow at all.

Concept 3 of 5: Negating a Biconditional

A biconditional says the two sides agree. Denying it says they disagree — exactly one of them holds. That is why the negation comes out as two conjunctions joined by OR rather than as anything shorter.

Definition

∼(p↔q)≡(p∧∼q)∨(∼p∧q)\sim(p \leftrightarrow q) \equiv (p \wedge \sim q) \vee (\sim p \wedge q), read as 'exactly one of p and q is true'.

  • A useful companion: p↔∼qp \leftrightarrow \sim q is itself equivalent to ∼(p↔q)\sim(p \leftrightarrow q).
  • Consequently ∼(p↔∼q)≡p↔q\sim(p \leftrightarrow \sim q) \equiv p \leftrightarrow q — a negation and an internal negation cancel each other out.

In a verbal stem, 'if and only if' is the signal; the negation always reads as one part holding without the other.

Negation of a biconditional

∼(p↔q)≡(p∧∼q)∨(∼p∧q)∼(p↔∼q)≡p↔q\sim(p \leftrightarrow q) \equiv (p \wedge \sim q) \vee (\sim p \wedge q) \qquad \sim(p \leftrightarrow \sim q) \equiv p \leftrightarrow q
  • ↔\leftrightarrowbiconditional — true when the sides agree

Worked example

Write the negation of 'A number is divisible by 6 if and only if it is divisible by 2 and by 3.'
Practise this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps

The same idea in a real exam question:

MHT-CET · 2024 · 14th May Shift 1 · Q113Moderate

Example 3 · Mathematical Logic · Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

The negation of the statement "The number is an odd number if and only if it is divisible by 3."

Negating both sides of a biconditional

∼p↔∼q\sim p \leftrightarrow \sim q is equivalent to p↔qp \leftrightarrow q itself — if two things always agree, so do their denials. It is therefore the exact opposite of the negation, and it appears in the option list every time this is asked.

Concept 4 of 5: Negating a Statement Given in Words

Do not try to negate an English sentence by ear. Translate it to symbols, negate mechanically, then translate back — the whole difficulty of these questions is in the first and last steps, not the middle one.

Definition

For a verbal compound statement:

  • Assign letters to the simple statements, keeping each one positive.
  • Write the symbolic form, watching for hidden connectives: 'but' is AND, 'unless' is usually a conditional, 'if and only if' is a biconditional.
  • Negate symbolically using De Morgan and the conditional and biconditional rules.
  • Translate back, and check that every connective in your answer flipped.

Worked example

Write the negation of 'The triangle is equilateral or isosceles, and the triangle is not isosceles.'
Practise this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps

The same idea in a real exam question:

MHT-CET · 2025 · 25 April Shift I · Q126Hard

Example 4 · Mathematical Logic · Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

The negation of the statement "The triangle is an equilateral or isosceles triangle and the triangle is not isosceles and it is right angled" is

Assigning a negative statement to a letter

If you set pp = 'the triangle is NOT isosceles', every subsequent negation needs an extra cancellation and the bookkeeping collapses. Always let the letters stand for the positive forms and carry the ∼\sim explicitly.

Concept 5 of 5: Negating Quantified Statements

To deny 'every student passed' you do not claim 'every student failed' — you only need one who did not. So a for-all becomes a there-exists, a there-exists becomes a for-all, and the inner claim is negated as well.

Definition

Negation swaps the quantifier and negates the predicate:

  • ∼[∀x, p(x)]≡∃x such that ∼p(x)\sim[\forall x,\, p(x)] \equiv \exists x \text{ such that } \sim p(x)
  • ∼[∃x such that p(x)]≡∀x, ∼p(x)\sim[\exists x \text{ such that } p(x)] \equiv \forall x,\, \sim p(x)

With several quantifiers, flip them in order, left to right, and negate the predicate at the end. An inequality inside the predicate reverses and loses or gains its equality: the negation of x≥Mx \geq M is x<Mx < M.

Quantifier negation

∼(∀x, p(x))≡∃x,  ∼p(x)∼(∃x, p(x))≡∀x,  ∼p(x)∼(x≥M)≡(x<M)\sim(\forall x,\, p(x)) \equiv \exists x,\; \sim p(x) \qquad \sim(\exists x,\, p(x)) \equiv \forall x,\; \sim p(x) \qquad \sim(x \geq M) \equiv (x < M)
  • ∀\forallfor all / for every
  • ∃\existsthere exists / for some

Worked example

Write the negation of 'There exists a natural number nn such that n2=2n^{2} = 2.'
Practise this conceptself-check · 4 quick reps

The same idea in a real exam question:

MHT-CET · 2025 · 23 April Shift I · Q131Moderate

Example 5 · Mathematical Logic · Negation of Statements and Quantifiers

Which of the following is the negation of the statement " For all M>0M > 0, there exist x∈ sx\in\text{ }s such that x⩾M′′x\geqslant M^{''}

Flipping the quantifier but leaving the predicate alone

The negation of 'for all x, p(x)' is 'there exists x with not p(x)' — the inner claim must be negated too. Options that flip only the quantifier are the standard distractor and look convincing at a glance.

Forgetting that the inequality changes

Negating x≥Mx \geq M gives x<Mx < M, not x≤Mx \leq M and not x>Mx > M. When the predicate is an inequality, the boundary moves to the other side, so check the equality case explicitly.

Summary — formulas & gotchas at a glance

A revision cheat-sheet for the formulas and gotchas above. Click any concept name to jump back to its full explanation.

Formulas (4)

  • De Morgan Laws for And and Or

    De Morgan laws

    ∼(p∧q)≡  ∼p∨∼q∼(p∨q)≡  ∼p∧∼q∼(∼p)≡p\sim(p \wedge q) \equiv\; \sim p \vee \sim q \qquad \sim(p \vee q) \equiv\; \sim p \wedge \sim q \qquad \sim(\sim p) \equiv p
  • Negating a Conditional

    Negation of an implication

    ∼(p→q)≡p∧∼q\sim(p \to q) \equiv p \wedge \sim q
  • Negating a Biconditional

    Negation of a biconditional

    ∼(p↔q)≡(p∧∼q)∨(∼p∧q)∼(p↔∼q)≡p↔q\sim(p \leftrightarrow q) \equiv (p \wedge \sim q) \vee (\sim p \wedge q) \qquad \sim(p \leftrightarrow \sim q) \equiv p \leftrightarrow q
  • Negating Quantified Statements

    Quantifier negation

    ∼(∀x, p(x))≡∃x,  ∼p(x)∼(∃x, p(x))≡∀x,  ∼p(x)∼(x≥M)≡(x<M)\sim(\forall x,\, p(x)) \equiv \exists x,\; \sim p(x) \qquad \sim(\exists x,\, p(x)) \equiv \forall x,\; \sim p(x) \qquad \sim(x \geq M) \equiv (x < M)

Watch out for (6)

Test yourself on Mathematical Logic

20 past MHT-CET questions from this chapter, timed at 36 minutes and marked the way the exam marks it. You see your score and every answer the moment you finish. Free to start.

Related notes