2
$\begingroup$

Given a true statement of the form $$\forall x\, \exists y\, (P(y) \implies S(x))$$ How would I go about instantiating this statement? I know that I can use a universal instantiation to yield $$\, \exists y\, (P(y) \implies S(m))$$ for some arbitrary $m$ in the universe, but is the existential instantiation just as simple as usual, i.e, do I just pick a $n$ for which $P$ holds? This would yield $$P(n) \implies S(m)$$ Is this correct?

Also, is an existential instantiation of this form "linked" to the variable $m$ that I introduced with the universal instantiation? That is, do I think of $m$ as being fixed?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

As you correctly surmise, you can of course not just pick any constant to instantiate an existential with. Indeed, after having instantiated the universal with $m$, we can of course not guarantee that the 'something' that has property $P$ is that very $m$. And indeed in general we cannot instantiate the existential with any constant (or any variable-free term) that we are already using elsewhere.

This is why we have to pick a constant that we are not using elsewhere when instantiating an existential: it is our way of saying: "well, we know something has such-and-such a property, but we don't know who or what it is, so let's just give it a name, so we can at least refer to it by a name".

Finally, note that just because we use a new constant does not mean that it has to be different from any of the other constants already in use. That is, later on we may realize that $n=m$. But to be safe, and keep all possibilities open, we have to use a new constant.

$\endgroup$

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.