1
$\begingroup$

Could wf $\exists x \mathscr B(x)$ be logically valid? Definitely. For instance, when wf $\forall x\mathscr B(x)$ is logically valid. But, could wf $\exists x \mathscr B(x)$ be logically valid when wf $\forall x\mathscr B(x)$ is not logically valid? Then where is exist an interpretation with denumerable sequence not satisfying wf $\mathscr B(x)$. Then we can look into another interpretation with domain consisting only with elements not satisfying wf $\mathscr B(x)$. But then in that second interpretation wf $\exists x \mathscr B(x)$ is not logically valid. My thoughts look valid. But, in the book of Elliott Mendelson “Introduction to Mathematical Logic” (Fifth Edition) on page 97 in Proposition 2.28 we see “Assume that $\vdash \exists_1 u \mathscr B(u, y_1, \cdots, y_n)$” and I seriously doubt that he means that $\mathscr B(u, y_1, \cdots, y_n)$ must be logically valid. How to solve that contradiction?

  • 0
    I would write ‘If a wff $\scr B$ and its negation $\lnot B$ ...’. The abbreviation ‘wff’ stands for ‘well-formed *formula*’ and is a noun, whereas ‘wf’ is an adjective.2011-08-03

1 Answers 1

2

Here's an example where $\exists_1 u P(u,y)$ is "logically valid" but $\forall u P(u,y)$ is not. Let $P(u,y)$ be the (well-formed) formula $u=y$.

Of course (under first-order logic with equality) there exists unique $u$ such that $u=y$ without it necessarily being true that every $u$ is equal to $y$.

  • 1
    I appreciated it. You are right. I am ashamed that didn’t get myself.2011-08-03