Mathematical Logic: For all and There exists

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the implications of the quantifier "for all" (∀) in the logical expression \vdash (\forall x)(A \rightarrow (B \equiv C)) \rightarrow ((\forall x)(A \rightarrow B) \equiv (\forall x)(A \rightarrow C)). The participant expresses confusion about how the presence of ∀ affects the logical structure and whether it can be disregarded. The deduction theorem is mentioned as a method to manipulate the expression, but the participant is uncertain about the validity of their methods when ∀ is included.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of first-order logic and quantifiers, specifically "for all" (∀) and "there exists" (∃).
  • Familiarity with logical implications and equivalences, including the symbols \rightarrow and \equiv.
  • Knowledge of the deduction theorem in mathematical logic.
  • Basic skills in manipulating logical expressions and proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the role of quantifiers in first-order logic, focusing on their impact on logical expressions.
  • Learn about the deduction theorem and its applications in formal proofs.
  • Explore logical equivalences and implications in mathematical logic.
  • Practice manipulating complex logical statements involving quantifiers and implications.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematical logic, educators teaching formal logic, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of quantifiers in logical expressions.

Goldenwind
Messages
145
Reaction score
0
Mathematical Logic: "For all" and "There exists"

I need to show that
[tex]\vdash (\forall x)(A \rightarrow (B \equiv C)) \rightarrow ((\forall x)(A \rightarrow B) \equiv (\forall x)(A \rightarrow C))[/tex]

My question to you, how does the [itex](\forall x)[/itex] affect this equation? If they weren't there, I could simply do this question, but their presence is confusing me. What's different? Can I just ignore them and move on as normal?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are your "[tex]\rightarrow[/tex]" symbols for "implies"? If so, use [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] next time, so it isn't so confusing.

Now, with the notation you chose, I don't really understand what the entire statement is conjecturing. Please explain (in words) what you are trying to ask. (Besides the question about [tex]\forall x[/tex].)
 
I wrote the symbols exactly how I was taught, sorry =/
I was taught that [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] is used for "implies", or (¬A v B).

Now for what I'm trying to show... See the 2nd "implies" symbol? I'll be using the deduction theorem to move the (Ax)(A --> (B = C)) over to the left side of the |--, and then will attempt to work with the remaining right side of the |-- to show that it can be expressed the same as the left.

The thing is, my methods work when (Ax) isn't there, however I'm not sure if they work the same when it is. Can I just ignore the presence of (Ax), and do this question as if it weren't there?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K