# Equality implies Substitution

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

## Theorem

Let $\map P x$ denote a Well-Formed Formula which contains $x$ as a free variable.

Then the following are tautologies:

- $\forall x: \paren {\map P x \iff \exists y: \paren {y = x \land \map P y} }$
- $\forall x: \paren {\map P x \iff \forall y: \paren {y = x \implies \map P y} }$

Note that when $y$ is substituted for $x$ in either formula, it is false in general; compare Confusion of Bound Variables.

## Proof

By Universal Affirmative implies Particular Affirmative iff First Predicate is not Vacuous:

- $\paren {\exists y: y = x \land \forall y: \paren {y = x \implies \map P x} } \implies \exists y: \paren {y = x \land \map P x}$

Then:

\(\ds \) | \(\) | \(\ds x = x\) | Equality is Reflexive | |||||||||||

\(\ds \) | \(\leadsto\) | \(\ds \exists y: y = x\) | Existential Generalisation | |||||||||||

\(\ds \) | \(\leadsto\) | \(\ds \paren {\forall y: \paren {y = x \implies \map P x} \implies \exists y: \paren {y = x \land \map P x} }\) | Modus Ponendo Ponens |

$\Box$

\(\ds \paren { y = x \land \map P y}\) | \(\implies\) | \(\ds \map P x\) | Substitutivity of Equality | |||||||||||

\(\text {(1)}: \quad\) | \(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) | \(\ds \exists y: \paren {y = x \land \map P y}\) | \(\implies\) | \(\ds \map P x\) | Universal Generalisation | |||||||||

\(\text {(2)}: \quad\) | \(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) | \(\ds \forall y: \paren {y = x \implies \map P y}\) | \(\implies\) | \(\ds \map P x\) | Hypothetical Syllogism with first lemma |

$\Box$

Similarly:

\(\ds \map P x\) | \(\leadsto\) | \(\ds \paren {y = x \implies \map P y}\) | Substitutivity of Equality | |||||||||||

\(\text {(3)}: \quad\) | \(\ds \) | \(\leadsto\) | \(\ds \forall y: \paren {y = x \implies \map P y}\) | Universal Generalisation | ||||||||||

\(\text {(4)}: \quad\) | \(\ds \) | \(\leadsto\) | \(\ds \exists y: \paren {y = x \land \map P y}\) | First lemma |

The above two statements comprise the other direction of the biconditional assertions.

Together, $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$, and $(4)$ prove the two assertions.

$\blacksquare$

## Sources

- 1963: Willard Van Orman Quine:
*Set Theory and Its Logic*: $\S 6.1$ - 1963: Willard Van Orman Quine:
*Set Theory and Its Logic*: $\S 6.2$