Can I prove ∀xG(x,a)⊢∃xG(a,x) this way:
∀xG(x,a) premise
G(a,a) ∀xe
∃xG(a,x) ∃xi
Can I prove ∀xG(x,a)⊢∃xG(a,x) this way:
∀xG(x,a) premise
G(a,a) ∀xe
∃xG(a,x) ∃xi
On
Your proof is correct. I think you are doubting yourself because in going from $G(a,a)$, is it ok to not replace all $a$'s with $x$'s? This is a common concern.
But yes, this is indeed ok!
In general:
When you eliminate a quantifier, then you do need to replace all variables that were quantified by that quantifier using a constant.
But when you introduce a quantifier, you do not have to replace all constants that you quantify by the variable you use for that quantifier.
Yeah, you can prove it that way.
Here is another way. The tableau $$ \forall x G(x, a) \\ \lnot \exists x G(a, x) \\ G(a, a) \\ \lnot G(a, a) $$ is closed, so the result holds. (It's a proof by contradiction.)