Proving the Axiom of Quantifiers: A Simple Algebraic Approach

  • Thread starter Thread starter amilapsn
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equivalence of the quantifiers in the statement ∀x∀y p(x,y) ↔ ∀y∀x p(x,y). Participants express that this may seem axiomatic and share their attempts at a proof using algebraic methods. One user suggests starting with an assumption of ∀x∀y p(x,y) and demonstrates how to derive p(x₀,y₀) for arbitrary x₀ and y₀. The conversation highlights the application of universal specification and universal generalization as key rules of inference in the proof process. Ultimately, the participants agree that generalizing from p(x₀,y₀) allows for the desired conclusion.
amilapsn
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This question may seem as an axiom to some. I also feel the same.
Prove:
##\forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)\Leftrightarrow\forall y\forall x\ p(x,y)##

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
##Assume\ \forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)##
##Let\ x_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \therefore \ \forall y \ p(x_0,y)##
##\ \ Let\ y_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \ \ \therefore\ p(x_0,y_0)##

From here onwards I'm stuck. Someone please help me to prove this (using only algebraic methods).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
amilapsn said:

Homework Statement



This question may seem as an axiom to some. I also feel the same.
Prove:
##\forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)\Leftrightarrow\forall y\forall x\ p(x,y)##

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
##Assume\ \forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)##
##Let\ x_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \therefore \ \forall y \ p(x_0,y)##
##\ \ Let\ y_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \ \ \therefore\ p(x_0,y_0)##

From here onwards I'm stuck. Someone please help me to prove this (using only algebraic methods).

Do you have a rule for existential generalization to conclude first ## \forall x p(x,y_0) ## and then do the same for ##y_0##?
 
WWGD said:
Do you have a rule for existential generalization to conclude first ## \forall x p(x,y_0) ## and then do the same for ##y_0##?
I didn't get you...
Do you mean this...?

##Assume\ \forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)##
##Let\ y_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \therefore \ \forall x \ p(x,y_{0})##
##\ \ Let\ x_0\in \mathbb{R}##
##\ \ \ \ \therefore\ p(x_0,y_0)##
##\ \ \therefore \forall x\ p(x,y_0)##
##\therefore \forall y\ \forall x\ p(x,y)##

BTW: I don't know what existential generalization could do here. Universal specification and universal generalization are the only rules of inference I can think of.
Thank You.
 
Somebody tell me whether I'm right or wrong...
 
Could you please tell us the details of the rule of universal generalization that you use?
 
universal generalization:if P(a) is true for all a in universe of discourse then we can say $$\forall x P(x)$$
 
Then it seems like from ##p(x_0,y_0)##, since each of ##x_0,y_0 ## is arbitrary, you could generalize to either ## \forall x p(x,y_0)## or ##\forall y p(x_0,y)## and then generalize again. I think that does it.
 
WWGD said:
Then it seems like from ##p(x_0,y_0)##, since each of ##x_0,y_0 ## is arbitrary, you could generalize to either ## \forall x p(x,y_0)## or ##\forall y p(x_0,y)## and then generalize again. I think that does it.
Me too...
 
Back
Top