MHB Proving (x = y) using Axioms: Basic Arithmetic Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter agapito
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic Proof
agapito
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Which axioms (at minimum) would have to be invoked so the following expression holds:

(x = y) ----> [(y=x) <---> (y=y)] ?

All help appreciated, am
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not clear what you mean by "hold". If you are referring to the truth of this formula in the standard interpretation for natural numbers, then no axioms are involved: any closed formula is simply either true or false. If you are referring to derivability of this formula, then you need to specify the theory from which you are deriving, e.g., theory of equality. I believe the left-to-right direction can be proved using Leibniz's law, and the right-to-left direction also requires reflexivity.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top