Proving the Axiom of Quantifiers: A Simple Algebraic Approach

  • Thread starter amilapsn
  • Start date
Thank you for your help...In summary, to prove ##\forall x\forall y\ p(x,y)\Leftrightarrow\forall y\forall x\ p(x,y)##, one can use the rules of universal generalization to conclude ## \forall x p(x,y_0)## and ##\forall y p(x_0,y)## from the arbitrary variables ##x_0,y_0##, and then generalize again to get the desired result.
  • #1
amilapsn
22
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
  • #2
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##?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
Somebody tell me whether I'm right or wrong...
 
  • #5
Could you please tell us the details of the rule of universal generalization that you use?
 
  • #6
universal generalization:if P(a) is true for all a in universe of discourse then we can say $$\forall x P(x)$$
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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...
 

Related to Proving the Axiom of Quantifiers: A Simple Algebraic Approach

1. What are quantifiers in logic?

Quantifiers are symbols used in logic to indicate the quantity of objects in a statement. They are used to define the scope of a statement and can either be universal or existential.

2. What is the difference between universal and existential quantifiers?

Universal quantifiers, denoted by the symbol ∀, state that a statement applies to all objects in a given set. Existential quantifiers, denoted by the symbol ∃, state that a statement applies to at least one object in a given set.

3. How are quantifiers used in mathematical proofs?

Quantifiers are used in mathematical proofs to define the scope of a statement and to make generalizations about a set of objects. They help to clarify the conditions under which a statement is true or false.

4. Can quantifiers be used in everyday language?

Yes, quantifiers can be used in everyday language to make general statements. For example, "All birds can fly" uses the universal quantifier "all" to make a statement about every bird. "Some people like chocolate" uses the existential quantifier "some" to make a statement about at least one person.

5. What is the opposite of a universal quantifier?

The opposite of a universal quantifier (∀) is a negated universal quantifier (¬∀), which states that a statement does not apply to all objects in a given set. It is equivalent to an existential quantifier (∃) followed by a negation (¬).

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
417
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
822
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
11
Views
957
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
469
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
296
Back
Top