Proving (∀x.ϕ) →(∃x.ϕ) using Natural Deduction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter badwolf23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
badwolf23
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have no idea how to solve this proof and would actually appreciate your help. I cannot use soundness or completeness.

⊢ (∀x.ϕ) →(∃x.ϕ)


Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
badwolf23 said:
Hello, I have no idea how to solve this proof and would actually appreciate your help. I cannot use soundness or completeness.

⊢ (∀x.ϕ) →(∃x.ϕ)Thanks

It will depend on the particular deductive apparatus. You might be using a set of axioms together with a set of rules of inference, or you might be using a system of natural deduction, etc. Let's suppose it's a natural deduction system.

Assume your antecedent. Often you will have a rule of universal instantiation that allows you to go from the assumed antecedent to an instance, then a rule that let's you go from the instance to the existential generalization of the instance (which is the consequent). Then an application of conditionalization gets you home. Does that help?
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Here's a Statistics problem for game of Polo (or Hockey if you like)'

Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
View full post »

Thread 'Roulette wheel physics and probability'

Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Natural Deduction: Solving Sequents [7/10]
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Probability a randomly chosen natural number, which is not smaller than 𝑥, is greater than x?
Replies
15
Views
1K
MHB Natural deduction (negated implication)
Replies
8
Views
3K
Natural deduction sets (Rules of nature deduction)
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Deductive reasoning and hypothesis
Replies
7
Views
2K
MHB How Do I Apply Natural Deduction to These Logic Problems?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Proving Probability of Union with Indicator Variables in Three Events
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Solving Hangman's Paradox: Axioms, Deductions & Probabilities
Replies
10
Views
2K
A Concrete examples of randomness in math vs. probability theory
Replies
11
Views
3K
MHB Rules of Inference for Proving p→(p→q)→(p→q)
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top