0

I want to prove the theorem ∃x(A(x)→∀x A(x)). Because it is a theorem, it has no premises. The hint in the textbook says to only use the basic rules of TFL (truth-functional logic) and basic quantifier rules. It also says that it requires the use of IP (indirect proof). Thus, I know I probably shouldn't use identity rules but I don't see another way how. I have tried the following proof:


1     -∃x(P(x) → ∀xP(x)):Assumption
2         P(a):Assumption
3             -P(b):Assumption
4                 a=b:Assumption
5                 a=a:=Intro
6                 b=a:=Elim lines 4,5
7             a=b->b=a:-> Intro lines 4-6
8                 -a=b:Assumption
9                 I'm stuck here
10                !?:Negation Elim, I plan on using
11            a=b:IP lines 8-10
12            P(b):= Elim lines 2,11
13            !?:Negation Elim lines 3,12
14        P(b):IP lines 3-13
15        AxP(x):Universal Intro line 14
16    P(a)->AxP(x):->Intro lines 2-15
17    ∃x(P(x) → ∀xP(x)):Existential Intro line 16
18    !?:Negation Elim lines 1,17
19 ∃x(P(x) → ∀xP(x)): IP lines 1-18

I'm stuck on line 9 but I don't think I should even be using identity rules. So I think most of my proof is wrong anyways. Thanks for any guidance on this proof.

Laurena
  • 15

1 Answers1

0

Right... don’t use identity rules. Here’s a hint: within this IP, do another IP, assuming $\forall x \ A(x)$. That quickly leads to a contradiction, so now you have $\neg \forall x \ A(x)$, and from that you can derive (using another IP) $\exists x \ \neg A(x)$, and using that you can get the contradiction for the outside IP to complete the proof

Bram28
  • 100,612
  • 6
  • 70
  • 118
  • I see, so I did just that and now have those within the ¬A(x) assumption. However, I'm confused how that would lead to a contradiction to prove by IP A(x). I see how I could do ¬A(a): Assumption to get a contradiction but then I can't do existential elimination with that since 'a' occurs in an undischarged assumption. – Laurena Nov 30 '19 at 01:00
  • What I mean is: on line 2 assume $\forall x \ A(x)$. Then on line 3 assume $A(a)$. Line 4: reiterate $\forall x \ A(x)$. Line 5: $A(a) \to \forall x \ A(x)$ by $\to$ Intro on $3-4$. Line 6: $\exists x (A(x) \to \forall x \ A(x))$. This contradicts line 1, and so discharge assumption 2, so now you have $\neg \forall x \ A(x)$. from that you should be able to prove $\exists x \neg A(x)$. So now assume $\neg A(a)$. Do a conditional proof to show $A(a) \to \forall x \ A(x)$ and do $\exists$ Intro and this contradiction which you pull out with $\exists $ Elim. – Bram28 Nov 30 '19 at 02:42