Proving Math Logic: Solving the Existential Quantifier

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the existential quantifier from the premise \forall x\forall y[(fy=x)\rightarrow Qx]. The conclusion drawn is that the proof is valid under the assumption that the function f maps to an element in a non-empty universe, thus ensuring that fy possesses property Q. The suggested method involves instantiating the premise with specific values and applying existential generalization to derive \exists x Qx, contingent on the rules of the inference system in use.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of first-order logic and quantifiers
  • Familiarity with existential generalization
  • Knowledge of function notation in mathematical logic
  • Experience with formal proof systems and inference rules
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the rules of your specific inference system for formal proofs
  • Learn about existential generalization in first-order logic
  • Explore the implications of function mappings in logical proofs
  • Review examples of proving existential statements from universal premises
USEFUL FOR

Logicians, mathematicians, and students of formal logic who are interested in understanding the intricacies of quantifier proofs and the application of inference rules in mathematical reasoning.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
I need to prove the following:

[tex]\forall x\forall y[(fy=x)\rightarrow Qx]\vdash \exists xQx[/tex].

I can't do it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this even true? Seems a bit fishy.
 
I take it f is a function. It shouldn't seem fishy--after all fy has to equal something (most logics contain the assumption that the universe contains at least one object), and whatever it equals must have property Q.

I am not familiar with the rules of your specific inference system. One plausible way, whether it's sufficiently formal for a logic derivation I do not know, is to instantiate the premise with y and fy, so you get
(fy = fy) -> Qfy
And maybe you have a premise that x = x for all x, so you could then derive Qfy
Then use existential generalization on fy (is this legal in your system?) to obtain
[tex]\exists[/tex]x Qx
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K