For example, if I have an axiom starting with $\bf ∀x∀x'\dots$ , would it still be an axiom if the only difference is that the sequence has changed to $\bf∀x'∀x\dots$?
2026-03-26 09:46:53.1774518413
In meta-math does the sequence matter for $\bf ∀x$?
106 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in META-MATH
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Maximum possible reputation? (NOT a meta question)
- Exotic schemes of implications, examples
- Is the style of _Scott 1967_ outdated in discussing continuum hypothesis in a probability space?
- Is there a weak set theory that can prove that the natural numbers is a model of PA?
- How quickly can EFA define things, asymptotically?
- Where to put the dot at the end of a sentence when using cases-figure?
- Set theory that proves that if its consistient, is only proves true things about arithmetic
- Do models (in logic) contain elements?
- Does specifying which variables depend on which other variables strengthen arithmetic?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
If adjacent quantifiers of the same kind (both existential or both universal) are swapped, the result is a logically equivalent statement.
Beyond this little can be said. You may find discussions of pre-nex normal form helpful.
In most cases we do not say formally that one statement is an axiom just because it is a logical equivalent of a statement that is an axiom. It is possible however that in one particular circumstance the swapping of two universal quantifiers, just as outlined in the Question, would meet the criterion of being an axiom precisely when the version before swapping quantifiers is an axiom.
That is the case of the Scheme of Generalization of Axioms, often abbreviated AxGen, a provision of many formalizations of predicate calculus:
This axiom scheme (as it is not a single axiom, but a rule that allows us to generate many axioms from other axioms) will let us introduce zero or many universal quantifiers onto another axiom of the predicate calculus.
In this specific case (when $\varphi$ is an axiom of the predicate calculus) it is true that $\forall x \forall x'\; \varphi$ and $\forall x' \forall x \; \varphi$ are equally to be considered axioms, and with equal justifications.