Again the sentence is: $(\forall y\in y)(\exists x \in x)(x=y)$
The structure $\mathfrak{A}$ in question is the standard one for the language of set theory $\mathcal{L}_{ST}$ but where the universe $|\mathfrak{A}|$ is the following set:
$|\mathfrak{A}|=\{u,v,w,\{u\},\{u,v\},\{u,v,w\}\}$
Further the notation $(\forall y \in b)( \phi(y))$ abbreviates $(\forall y)[y\in b\rightarrow\phi(y)]$ and $(\exists x \in b)(\phi(x))$ abbreviates $(\exists x)[x\in b \land\phi(x)]$.
Initially, I thought this sentence was saying that each element in $A$ is identical to some element in $A$, which seems true. But then, looking a bit closer at the notation, I think rather that it is saying that each set in $A$ is identical to some set in $A$. The only sets in $A$ are $\{u\},\{u,v\},$ and $\{u,v,w\}$. And clearly none of these sets are identical to one another. So the sentence is false.
My questions are two-fold:
First, am I right in thinking the sentence false?
If so my second question regards the abbreviations: In the abbreviations the quantifiers bind a variable that ranges over elements in a set. But in the sentence, the quantifier is binding a variable for sets. Given this is the sentence even well-formed? And if not, then wouldn't it be neither true nor false?
Thanks for the help. For reference this is Exercise 1.7.5 in Leary and Kristiansan's A Friendly Introduction to Mathematical Logic pg. 33.
Hint
The authors say:
The formula $(∀y∈y)(∃x∈x)(x=y)$ is:
and we know that $(y∈y)$ is always false in $A$.
Thus, we have a conditional with a false antecedent.