The rules of formation for the language of set theory are the following:

  1. If $a$ is a variable and $b$ is a variabe, then $a\,{\in}\,b$ is a WFF.

  2. If $P$ is a WFF and $Q$ is a WFF, then ${\lnot}P$,$P{\land}Q$,$P{\lor}Q$,$P{\implies}Q$,$P{\iff}Q$ are all WFFs.

  3. If $a$ is a variable and $P$ is a WFF, then ${\forall}a(P)$ and ${\exists}a:(P)$ are WFFs.

Although point 1. is easy to understand, I have problems regarding 2. and 3. Why do things like $P{\iff}Q$ need to be defined as WFFs? Considering that $P{\iff}Q$ means that $(P{\implies}Q){\land}(Q{\implies}P)$, isn't it enough to just say that $P{\land}Q$ and $P{\implies}Q$ are WFFs and not mention $P{\iff}Q$ at all?


We do not define formulae but symbols.

Having said that: YES, it is possible to "save" conncetives using only, e.g. $\lnot$ and $\land$ as primitive and introduce the others: $\lor, \to, \leftrightarrow$ as abbreviations through the usual definitions.

In the same way, we can use only $\forall$ as primitive and define $\exists$ as $\lnot \forall \lnot$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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