I am studying a book on proofs and there are two statements that I don't understand the difference:
Let $x$ belong to the set of integers. If $x$ has the property that for each integer $m$, $m + x = m$, then $x = 0$.
Let $x$ belong to the set of integers. If $x$ has the property that there exists an integer $m$ such that $m + x = m$, then $x = 0$.
I would greatly appreciate the community's input, so that I can focus on the proofs. For statement 1, how about, since m belongs to $\mathbb{Z}$:
$$ m + x = m $$ $$(m + x) = (m) $$ $$ (-m) + (m + x) = (-m) + (m) $$ $$ ((-m) + m) + x = 0 $$ $$ (0) + x = 0 $$ $$ x = 0$$
Would that be good? This would say that there is only one unique solution for any $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ and it's $0$. Moreover, for statement 2, it seems that the logic is the same, but I don't need to write it as variables. Instead, I simply need to pick one single value, right?
2 has a weaker condition. In 2, the only thing we need to show that $x = 0$ is that there is a single integer $m$ such that $x + m = m$. For 1, however, it must hold for all integers, $m$, that $x + m = m$.