In fear of asking an elementary stupid question, I'll say that I am failing to differentiate between the process of Abstraction in set theory and Predicate Logic. I would like to illustrate my confusion with the following example:
I want to outline all the multiples of 2 (universe of discourse: integers): ...,-4,-2,0,2,4,...
In predicate logic, I would characterize it thusly:
$$ (\forall x)[(x \in \Bbb Z ) \wedge (\exists n)[(n \in \Bbb Z) \wedge (x=2n)]] $$
As a set, using Abstraction, I would delineate it so: $$ A= \{ x: (\exists n)[(n \in \Bbb Z) \wedge (x=2n)] \}$$
Can I use them interchangeably? When should I use one and preclude the other? Are they the same thing? Can I use the "all" quantifier ($ \forall $) in Abstraction?
I apologize if my question might not even make full sense. The untidiness of the question exposes an ignorance that I hope you could ameliorate. Thank you for you help.