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

I just want to know what this combination of symbols means:

$\exists !$

I know ∃ means 'there exists', but what does it mean when it is paired with a '!'? I have written down 'there exists unique" but I am not 100% sure this is correct?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

“There exist unique” $$\exists!m\in\mathbb R:\forall a\in\mathbb R:a\cdot m=a$$

In this example $\exists!$ means that $m$ is unique, that this number exist ($m=1$) but no other does have this property.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is false when a is zero. You need to swap your quantifiers. – user10193 Dec 15 '13 at 13:56
You're right @user10193, corrected. – Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzón Dec 15 '13 at 13:58

$\exists ! x:$ "There exists a unique x..."

To use Carlos' example: $$\exists ! m \in \mathbb R,\,\forall a \in \mathbb R( a\cdot m = a)$$

This is equivalent to the statement:

$$\exists m \in \mathbb R, \forall a \in \mathbb R\Big(a\cdot m = a \land \forall y \in \mathbb R((a \cdot y = a) \implies y = m)\Big)$$

As you can see, the uniqueness quantifier greatly simplifies the logical statement.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is the only answer that gets to the point, in my opinion. – Git Gud Dec 15 '13 at 14:09
The final formula is not quite right, it should be $(\exists m \in \mathbb{R})[(\forall a \in \mathbb{R})[a\cdot m = a] \land (\forall y \in \mathbb{R})[(\forall a \in \mathbb{R})(a\cdot y = a) \to y = m]]$. In general $(\exists! x)\phi(x)$ means $(\exists x)[\phi(x) \land (\forall y)[\phi(y) \to y=x]]$ – Carl Mummert Dec 15 '13 at 15:52

The symbol $\exists$ is the existential quantifier and with a $!$ in front of it, it means that there exists at most one element...

share|cite|improve this answer
I'd replace "at most" with "exactly", because this implies there may be less than one, which is not true because of the ∃ symbol. – Darrel Hoffman Dec 15 '13 at 15:46

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.