Prove $ (∀x_1 (∃x_2 (p(x_1, x_2) ⇒ (∀x_2 p(x_1, x_2)))))$

Question

Can u help show that this is a theorem? $ (∀x_1 (∃x_2 (p(x_1, x_2) ⇒ (∀x_2 p(x_1, x_2)))));$

I was trying to use the deduction theorem but i hit a wall. Can u help me out using derivatives and Hilbert Calculus?

It is good that you used parenthesis to disambiguate the expression, but they way you placed them, your second $x_2$ is over writing the first $x_2$, I think that is might be a typographical error. — DanielV, Mar 23 '19 at 18:12
@DanielV: No, that's how it's supposed to go. The body of the $\forall x_1$ is an instance of the Drinker paradox. — hmakholm left over Monica, Mar 23 '19 at 18:14
@HenningMakholm It still should be $\forall x_3(p(x_1,,x_3))$ (say), though. — J.G., Mar 23 '19 at 18:18
See the post Proof of Drinker paradox as well as the post Why is this true? (∃x)(P(x)⇒(∀y)P(y)) — Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Mar 23 '19 at 18:29
@J.G.: You could also write that. But most formalizations of first-order logic do allow a quantifier to re-bind a variable that is already bound by an enclosing quantifier -- for reasons discussed in this question. — hmakholm left over Monica, Mar 23 '19 at 18:30

J.G. · Answer 1 · 2019-03-23T18:42:16.180

1

"English" answer:

Fix any $x_1,\,x_2$. If $p(x_1,\,x_2)$ is false, the required implication is vacuously true. If $x_2$ cannot be chosen so that $p(x_1,\,x_2)$ is false, our choice of $x_1$ has obtained $\forall x_2 (p(x_1,\,x_2))$, so again the implication succeeds.

HC answer:

$$\exists x_2(\neg p(x_1,\,x_2))\implies(p(x_1,\,x_2)\implies \forall x_3 (p(x_1,\,x_3)))$$ $$\not\exists x_2(\neg p(x_1,\,x_2))\implies\forall x_3(p(x_1,\,x_3)),\,\implies(p(x_1,\,x_2)\implies\forall x_3(p(x_1,\,x_3)))$$ Then use $(q\implies r)\land (\neg q\implies r)\implies r$.

edited Mar 23 '19 at 18:42

answered Mar 23 '19 at 17:46

J.G.

115,835

Yeah Thanks , but i was trying to do it using a sequece of derivatives with hilbert calculus. – Someone Mar 23 '19 at 18:18
@PedroSantos I hope my edit is a little bit more useful. – J.G. Mar 23 '19 at 18:42

score 0 · Accepted Answer · answered Mar 24 '19 at 14:26

Hint

In this post you can find an Hilbert-style proof of :

$⊢(∀xβ → α) ↔ ∃x(β → α)$, provided that $x$ is not free in $\alpha$.

We have to consider :

$∀x_2p(x_1,x_2) \to ∀x_2p(x_1,x_2)$;

it is an instance of the propositional tautology : $\vdash A \to A$, and thus is a theorem.

Now we apply the equivalence above to it, due to the fact that $x_2$ is not free in $∀x_2p(x_1,x_2)$ to get :

$\vdash ∃x_2 \ (p(x_1,x_2) \to ∀x_2p(x_1,x_2))$.

The last step is obtained with Generalization:

$\vdash ∀x_1 \ ∃x_2 \ (p(x_1,x_2) \to ∀x_2p(x_1,x_2))$.

Prove $ (∀x_1 (∃x_2 (p(x_1, x_2) ⇒ (∀x_2 p(x_1, x_2)))))$

2 Answers2