Proving Vacuous Quantification in First-Order Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manchot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantification
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the theorem \exists x (P) \rightarrow P, where x is not a free variable of P, within first-order logic. The initial query seeks a rigorous justification for this identity, expressing a desire for clarity despite an intuitive understanding. Participants clarify that if P is a naked propositional symbol, the proof is straightforward as it becomes a tautology. The conversation reveals that P is actually a predicate without x, leading to the conclusion that the identity holds true. Ultimately, the original poster resolves their confusion and thanks the contributors.
Manchot
Messages
470
Reaction score
5
I'm trying to prove a theorem which makes use of the identity \exists x (P) \rightarrow P (where x is not a free variable of P). Intuitively, I want to believe it, but since I'm trying to do things rigorously, I'd like to be able to justify it to myself. Can anyone offer a suggestion as to how I'd derive the identifier from the usual axioms of first-order logic? (I'm sure that I'm missing something totally obvious). Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand. P is a naked propositional symbol in FOL? If so, then your done
(regardless of whether it has any quantifiers attached to it, or not). It's a tautology.
 
Last edited:
P is a predicate in which x doesn't appear. Anyway, I know that it is a tautology, but I'm trying to prove it rigorously from FOL's axioms.
 
Never mind, I've got it. Thanks anyway.
 

Thread 'Hypothesis testing: Defining H0, HA hypotheses so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense'

The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Why the emphasis on first-order logic?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad On the meaning of logical implication within specific context/models
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Graduate Second order logic and completeness
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate First order logic and set theory: who comes first?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Prove that the tail of this distribution goes to zero
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Are formal systems of first order logic incomplete?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
How to Prove (∀x)(A→B) ≡ ((∃x)A) → B Using First-Order Logic
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Graduate First order logic : Predicates
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Direct limit of multiverse models of ZFC
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Unbounded Logical Trees: Constructing Natural Numbers with Logical Trees
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K