Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T15:18:01.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A definition of existence in terms of abstraction and disjunction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Frederic B. Fitch*
Affiliation:
Yale University

Extract

Greater economy can be effected in the primitive rules for the system K of basic logic by defining the existence operator ‘E’ in terms of two-place abstraction and the disjunction operator ‘V’. This amounts to defining ‘E’ in terms of ‘ε’, ‘έ’, ‘o, ‘ό’, ‘W’ and ‘V’, since the first five of these six operators are used for defining two-place abstraction.

We assume that the class Y of atomic U-expressions has only a single member ‘σ’. Similar methods can be used if Y had some other finite number of members, or even an infinite number of members provided that they are ordered into a sequence by a recursive relation represented in K. In order to define ‘E’ we begin by defining an operator ‘D’ such that

Here ‘a’ may be thought of as an existence operator that provides existence quantification over some finite class of entities denoted by a class A of U-expressions. In other words, suppose that ‘a’ is such that ‘ab’ is in K if and only if, for some ‘e’ in A, ‘be’ is in K. Then ‘Dab’ is in K if and only if, for some ‘e and ‘f’ in A, ‘be’ or ‘b(ef)’ is in K; and ‘a’, ‘Da’, ‘D(Da)’, and so on, can be regarded as existence operators that provide for existence quantification over successively wider and wider finite classes. In particular, if ‘a’ is ‘εσ’, then A would be the class Y having ‘σ’ as its only member, and we can define the unrestricted existence operator ‘E’ in such a way that ‘Eb’ is in K if and only if some one of ‘εσb’, ‘D(εσ)b’, ‘D(D(εσ))b’, and so on, is in K.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Fitch, F. B., A simplification of basic logic, this Journal, vol. 18 (1953), pp. 317325Google Scholar, and Recursive functions in basic logic, ibid., vol. 21 (1956), pp. 337–346. In the latter paper it is shown that the rule for ‘E’ is replaceable by a rule for an operator ‘F’ and that ‘E’ and ‘F’ must be definable in terms of each other with the help of the other primitive operators. It is now evident that ‘E’ and ‘F’are definable in terms of the other primitive operators.