Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the Free Variable article on Wikipedia, it lists these:

variable-binding operators

as variable-binding operators. I have seen all of them during my math studies, except for the psi operator. What does $\psi x$ mean in this context?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I don't know what was intended by $\psi$ here, but some Wikipedia archaeology reveals that it was introduced in this edit, and the same user tried to remove it again one minute later. They made a mess out of the removal, and Michael Hardy undid the mess, leaving in the $\psi x$ with no explanation. None is likely forthcoming, because the user who added the $\psi x$, back in August 2008, has not been back to Wikipedia since.

In short, it is most likely a piece of Wikipedia nonsense. Unless someone posts a definitive answer here, I will shortly remove the $\psi x$ from the Wikipedia article.

As a consolation prize, here are some other variable binding operators you may not be familiar with, which are not in the Wikipedia article:

  • Robin Milner's $\pi$-calculus uses "$\nu x. F$" to denote an expression F in which $x$ is instantiated to a "new" variable that has never been used before within the scope of the current computation.
  • Whitehead and Russell use "$\iota x.\Phi(x)$" to denote the unique $x$ satisfying some description $\Phi(x)$. For example, "$\iota x. x$ is the King of Swaziland" is an expression denoting the King of Swaziland.
  • Hilbert used "$\epsilon x.\phi(x)$" to denote "some value for which $\phi$ is true". That is, for any property $\phi$, if $\exists v.\phi(x)$ is true,then so is $\phi(\epsilon x.\phi(x))$.
  • Similarly, Hilbert used $\mu x.\phi(x)$ to denote the smallest natural number for which $\phi$ is true.
  • Category theorists often use $\exists!x.\phi(x)$ as an abbreviation for $\exists x\forall y.\phi(x) \land (\phi(y)\implies y=x)$, or some equivalent variation of it. It says that there is exactly one $x$ for which $\phi(x)$ holds.

Commonly-used quantifiers that do not seem to have any standard compact notation include "almost everywhere" and "all but finitely many".

share|cite|improve this answer
$\exists !$ is a standard abbreviation and not peculiar to category theorists. – Zhen Lin Jul 25 '12 at 3:18
Thanks. I was careful in my phrasing not to rule out the use of $\exists !$ by non-category theorists. Please feel free to edit my answer if you have anything concrete to add. – MJD Jul 25 '12 at 3:21
That archaeology is convincing enough on its own that I've just boldly gone ahead and deleted it. – Henning Makholm Jul 25 '12 at 19:46

My first impulse in seeing ‘$\varphi x$’ is to read it as a variation on the logical schema (‘$\varphi(x)$’, ‘$F x$’, etc.), which, if that was the intented meaning, should, I believe, preclude it from a list of variable-binding operators. I would vote up for removal from the article if I could.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.