Proving Vacuous Quantification in First-Order Logic: A Guide

In summary, the conversation is about proving a theorem that uses the identity \exists x (P) \rightarrow P in first-order logic. The person asking for help wants to justify it to themselves and is looking for suggestions on how to derive the identity from first-order logic's axioms. The other person initially doesn't understand, but then realizes that it is a tautology. The person asking for help then clarifies that P is a predicate where x does not appear and they want to prove it rigorously from the axioms. They later figure it out on their own.
  • #1
Manchot
473
4
I'm trying to prove a theorem which makes use of the identity [itex]\exists x (P) \rightarrow P[/itex] (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
  • #2
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:
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
Never mind, I've got it. Thanks anyway.
 

What is vacuous quantification?

Vacuous quantification is a logical concept that refers to the use of a universal or existential quantifier in a statement where the variable being quantified over has no instances or does not exist. In other words, the statement is true because there are no cases where it is false.

What is an example of vacuous quantification?

An example of vacuous quantification is the statement "All unicorns have wings." This statement is vacuously true because there are no instances of unicorns to prove it false.

Why is vacuous quantification important in mathematics and logic?

Vacuous quantification is important in mathematics and logic because it helps us understand and evaluate statements that involve universal or existential quantifiers. It also plays a key role in proofs and theorems.

How does vacuous quantification relate to the concept of empty sets?

There is a connection between vacuous quantification and empty sets in that both refer to the absence of elements or instances. In vacuous quantification, the variable being quantified over has no instances, while in empty sets, the set has no elements.

Can vacuous quantification lead to contradictions or false statements?

No, vacuous quantification cannot lead to contradictions or false statements. It is a valid logical concept that follows the rules of quantifiers and does not violate any logical principles. However, it can sometimes lead to statements that seem counterintuitive or strange.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top