For readability write for the uninterpreted relation . In the first proof, introduce the universal quantifier inside the existential witness scope:
| Line | Formula | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Premise | |
| 2 | Assume with fresh witness name | |
| 3 | Universal quantifier elimination rule, 2; choose fresh arbitrary | |
| 4 | Existential quantifier introduction rule, 3 | |
| 5 | Universal quantifier introduction rule, 4; is absent from open assumptions | |
| 6 | Existential quantifier elimination rule, 1 and 2–5 |
| Line | Formula | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Premise; choose arbitrary and fresh for this premise | |
| 2 | Assume with fresh , also different from | |
| 3 | Universal quantifier elimination rule, 2 | |
| 4 | Existential quantifier introduction rule, 3 | |
| 5 | Existential quantifier elimination rule, 1 and 2–4 | |
| 6 | Universal quantifier introduction rule, 5 |
These are distinct proof trees: the final two rule applications are interchanged, and their freshness conditions have been checked in their respective contexts. They express the quantifier order and uniform witness principle: a single witness working for every object also supplies a witness for each object individually.
The converse is not valid. In a domain interpret as equality of its arguments. Every object has a witness, namely itself, but no one object equals both 0 and 1. The premise of the converse is true and its conclusion false. The symbol is an arbitrary binary relation here; no set-membership axioms may be imposed on it without an additional premise.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.