Abstract
To have recognized the fundamental role that quantifiers play, is one of Frege’s contributions to mathematics. Elimination of quantifiers, however, was not invented by logicians. In fact, it is easily the most important thing that happens in any mathematical proof. Investigation would probably reveal a direct relation between the usefulness of a theorem, and its ability to simplify quantifications. (The same goes for notions, e.g., continuous everywhere versus uniformly continuous). In particular, (what some call) infinity lemmas, or (what others call) combinatorial lemmas, turn out to be simple instructions for replacing bad combinations (∀∃) by more manageable ones (∃∀). Here is a list of examples:
-
(1)
Axiom of choice:
$$\left( {\forall x} \right)\left( {\exists y} \right)Rxy. \equiv .\left( {\exists f} \right)\left( {\forall x} \right)Rxfx$$((1)) -
(2)
Infinity lemma (compactness):
$$\left( {\forall x} \right)\left( {{}_\exists \overline {Zx} } \right)\left( {\forall t} \right){}^xM\left( {\overline X t,\overline Z t} \right). \equiv \left( {{}_\exists Z} \right)\left( {\forall t} \right)M\left( {\overline X t,\overline Z t} \right)$$((1)) -
(3)
Ramsey’s lemma:
$${\left( {{}_\forall Z} \right)^{\inf }}\left( {{}_{\exists y}} \right){\left( {{}_{\exists x}} \right)^y}\left[ {Z{x_A}Z{y_A}\overline R xy} \right]. \supset .{\left( {{}_\exists Z} \right)^{\inf }}\left( {\forall y} \right){\left( {\forall x} \right)^y}\left[ {Z{x_A}Zy \supset Rxy} \right]$$((1))
Why, in the course of a proof, is the right side ∃∀ more desirable? Having arrived at (∃x)(∀y)Sxy, I will simply say “let b be one of these x, and so (∀y)Sby”. Such and “existentiation” permanently eliminates a quantifier.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
R. Rado, Axiomatic treatment of rank in infinite sets, Canadian J. of Math. 1 (1949), 337–343.
F.P. Ramsey, On a problem of formal logic, Proc. London Math. Soc. 30 (1929), 264–286.
J.R. Büchi, The monadic second order theory of ω 1, Lecture Notes in Math. 328, Springer (1973), 1–127.
J.R. Büchi, On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic, Proc. 1960 Int. Cong, for Logic, Stanford Univ. Press (1962), 1–11.
L. Löwenheim, Über Möglichkeiten im Relativekalkul, Math. Ann. 76 (1915), 447–470.
F. Hausdorff, Mengenlehre, 3. Auflage, Dover N.Y. 1944.
R. McNaughton, Testing and generating infinite sequences by finite automata, Inform. and Control 9. (1966), 521–530.
Büchi and Landweber, Solving sequential conditions by finite state operators, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 138 (1969) 295–311.
D.A. Martin, Measurable cardinals and analytic games, Fu. Math 66 (1970), 287–291.
M.O. Rabin, Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 141 (1969) 1–35.
M. Davis, Infinite games of perfect information, Advances in game theory, Ann. of Math. Study 52 (1964), 85–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buchi, J.R. (1990). Using Determinancy of Games to Eliminate Quantifiers. In: Mac Lane, S., Siefkes, D. (eds) The Collected Works of J. Richard Büchi. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8928-6_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8928-6_32
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-8930-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-8928-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive