
      Getting rid of universal quantifiers is easy: if you know ∀x :(φ) (where φ is a formula presumably involving x), well then you can replace x with
      anything you want, and the resulting formula will be true. We say
      ![\forall x:(\phi )\vdash \phi [x \mapsto t]](/system/files/resource/9/9508/9615/media/eqn-img_1.gif) where t is any term. Any variables
      in t are arbitrary, unless it is an already-existing non-arbitrary variable.
 where t is any term. Any variables
      in t are arbitrary, unless it is an already-existing non-arbitrary variable.
    
      For example, suppose we know that  We can replace n with some term like m+4 to conclude
We can replace n with some term like m+4 to conclude  . The variable m is arbitrary, unless it already occurred in non-arbitrary in a previous
      line of the proof (perhaps introduced via ∃Elim). A more usual step is to use a term which is just a single variable, and (by coincidence) happens to have the same name as the quantified
      variable we are eliminating. Thus we often conclude
. The variable m is arbitrary, unless it already occurred in non-arbitrary in a previous
      line of the proof (perhaps introduced via ∃Elim). A more usual step is to use a term which is just a single variable, and (by coincidence) happens to have the same name as the quantified
      variable we are eliminating. Thus we often conclude  (note the absence of the initial ∀); n is arbitrary (unless it had already been confusingly in use as a non-arbitrary
      variable earlier). This is helpful when we'll be later re-introducing the ∀ in a later step; see the example below.
 (note the absence of the initial ∀); n is arbitrary (unless it had already been confusingly in use as a non-arbitrary
      variable earlier). This is helpful when we'll be later re-introducing the ∀ in a later step; see the example below.
    
- 瀏覽次數:1949
 
       
        




 
