Intereting Posts

Is the positive root of the equation $x^{x^x}=2$, $x=1.47668433…$ a transcendental number?
Evaluating series of zeta values like $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{\zeta(2k)}{k16^{k}}=\ln(\pi)-\frac{3}{2}\ln(2) $
What does strength refer to in mathematics?
equilibrium distribution, steady-state distribution, stationary distribution and limiting distribution
Probability of having at least $K$ consecutive zeros in a sequence of $0$s and $1$s
Derivative of $\log |AA^T|$ with respect to $A$
Exercise on $\dim \ker T^i$, with $T^4=0$
Understanding the definition of tensors as multilinear maps
$C$ be the curve of intersection of sphere $x^2+y^2+z^2=a^2$ and plane $x+y+z=0$ ; to evaluate $\int_C ydx + z dy +x dz$ by Stoke's theorem?
Are derivatives linear maps?
How to prove that $A_5$ has no subgroup of order 30?
Algebra of Random Variables?
Formal proof that Schwartz space is space of rapidly decreasing functions
Evaluating $\int_0^{\infty} {\frac{\sin{x}\sin{2x}\sin{3x}\cdots\sin{nx}\sin{n^2x}}{x^{n+1}}}\ dx$
Evaluating limits at positive and negative infinity

During a lecture today the prof. posed the question of how we could write “There is exactly one person whom everybody loves.” without using the uniqueness quantifier.

The first part we wrote as a logical expression was “There is one person whom everybody loves.”, ignoring the ‘exactly one’ part of the question initially. From this he wrote

$L(x,y): x$ loves $y$; domain for $x$ and $y$: $\{\text{people}\}$

- Infinite sets don't exist!?
- Axiom of choice, non-measurable sets, countable unions
- Does mathematics become circular at the bottom? What is at the bottom of mathematics?
- A terminology to analysts
- Is $(P\implies Q)\implies (\lnot Q\implies \lnot P)$ always true?
- Some questions concerning the size of proper classes in ZFC

$\exists x\forall y: L(y,x)$

Which I understand to mean ‘There is a person $x$ such that for all $y$, $x$ is loved by $y$’ AKA ‘There is a person who is loved by everyone’. I get that part.

The part I don’t get is how the expression of ‘exactly one’.

$\forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x =z)$

which then creates the joint expression

$\exists x\forall y(L(y,x))\land \forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x=z)$

I just can’t seem to understand how $\forall z(\forall y(L(y,z))\to x =z)$ means exactly one here. I suppose you can take $\forall z$ here to mean ‘for any given person’, which means the $\forall z$ is considering every person in the world. This would translate the second expression block to something like, “For any given person $z$, if everybody loves $z$ then $z$ is the same person as $x$”.

To me though $\forall z$ generally means for every element in the domain which I see as meaning every person in the world simultaneously, as it seems to for $y$. Is that just plain wrong? How can I tell when $\forall$ means ‘all’ and when it means ‘for any (one)’? In the previous English translation the only reason I was able to translate it (if it’s even right) is because I already knew what the statement was suppose to mean.

Is it just that $\forall z$ means that this statement could be true for any element, and if so what’s the difference between $\forall z$ and $\exists z$? Someone told me that $\exists z$ would be redundant because the expression says $x=z$ but how do I know that $x$ and $z$ are automatically the same person if $\exists$ is used for both?

Sorry if this is a bit long with too many questions. I just wanted to try to make the cause of my confusion as clear as possible so you can help me figure this out.

- Intuitive Reason that Quantifier Order Matters
- Implications and Ordinary language
- Some questions concerning the size of proper classes in ZFC
- What is the Conjunction Normal Form of a tautology?
- OR-port $A\cdot B$: its conditional probabilities with zero working probability for each component? Reductio ad absurdum?
- A finitely axiomatizable consistent second-order theory without a model
- Rule C (Introduction to mathematical logic by Mendelson fifth edition)
- Deduction Theorem + Modus Ponens + What = Implicational Propositional Calculus?
- On the existence of closed form solutions to finite combinatorial problems
- Good books on mathematical logic?

Is it just that $\forall z$ means that this statement could be true for any element,

Yes, exactly.

…and if so what’s the difference between $\forall z$ and $\exists z$?

If we only asserted the existence of some particular $z$ such that if $y$ loves $z$, then that particular person $z$ would thus be $x$. But then we are not ruling out that there might be another person, different from $x$, that is also loved by everyone. And we have already asserted the existence of someone (namely, x) who is loved by all. So in that sense, $\exists z$ such that… **is** reduntant.

We need the universal quantifier for $z$ (to assert a statement $\forall z$) in the second clause to indicate that **if there is any** $z$ (which means that the claim that follows – as it relates to $z$, is true **for every** z) $z$ such that $L(y, z)$, then any/every such $z$ must be $x$, since there is exactly one person, namely $x$, who is loved by all $y$. I.e., for every $z,$ if every y loves z, then z ** must be** x: i.e., that $z$ is

Now, just one oversight to “clean up” your expression, which you state as:

$$∃x(\forall y L(y,x))\land ∀z(∀y(L(y,z))⟹x=z)$$

But here we have two independent clauses that creates a problem, because in your second clause, you have $x$ appear outside the scope of its quantifier. I.e., it is a free, unquantified varible.

So we want the **scope** of $\exists x$ to persist over the **entire statement**, hence the square brackets below.

That is, $$\exists x \big[\forall y(L(yx))\land \forall z(\forall y(L(y, z) \rightarrow z = x)\big]$$

The idea behind the formula is that, to say exactly one person is loved by everybody, you first say that there is such a person $x$ (this is the part you said you understood), and then you say that there isn’t a second such person. That second part is expressed here as saying, if any other $z$ shows up who is also (like $x$) loved by everybody, then this wasn’t really *another* $z$ but just the same $x$.

The simplest definition for $\langle \exists! x :: P(x) \rangle$ I know, which I’ve probably learned from Dijkstra et al.’s works, is $$\langle \exists y :: \langle \forall x :: P(x) \equiv x = y \rangle \rangle$$

which does only use $P(x)$ once.

Note how we have the following nice symmetry:

$$

\begin{array} \\

\langle \exists! x :: P(x) \rangle & \;\equiv\; & \langle \exists y :: \langle \forall x :: P(x) & \equiv & x = y \rangle \rangle \\

\langle \exists\phantom! x :: P(x) \rangle & \;\equiv\; & \langle \exists y :: \langle \forall x :: P(x) & \Leftarrow & x = y \rangle \rangle \\

\langle \phantom\exists! x :: P(x) \rangle & \;\equiv\; & \langle \exists y :: \langle \forall x :: P(x) & \Rightarrow & x = y \rangle \rangle \\

\end{array}

$$

where $\langle ! x :: P(x) \rangle$ means “there is at most one $x$ such that $P(x)$”.

- What are the issues in modern set theory?
- About Lusin's condition (N)
- thoughts about $f(f(x))=e^x$
- Showing an ideal is a projective module via a split exact sequence
- Unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^\infty$ is contractible?
- What are the rules for complex-component vectors and why?
- Norms on C inducing the same topology as the sup norm
- For which natural numbers $n$ is $\sqrt n$ irrational? How would you prove your answer?
- The function is continuous but not uniformly continuous at $$.
- How to convert a hexadecimal number to an octal number?
- Peano arithmetic with the second-order induction axiom
- A closed ball in a metric space is a closed set
- Inverse Function Theorem for Banach Spaces
- Fourier Cosine Transform (Parseval Identity) for definite integral
- Would nonmath students be able to understand this?