Universal instantiation

In predicate logic, universal instantiation[1][2][3] (UI; also called universal specification or universal elimination, and sometimes confused with dictum de omni) is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory.

Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal."

In symbols, the rule as an axiom schema is

for every formula A and every term a, where is the result of substituting a for each free occurrence of x in A. is an instance of

And as a rule of inference it is

from ⊢ ∀x A infer ⊢ A(a/x),

with A(a/x) the same as above.

Irving Copi noted that universal instantiation "...follows from variants of rules for 'natural deduction', which were devised independently by Gerhard Gentzen and Stanisław Jaśkowski in 1934." [4]

Quine

According to Willard Van Orman Quine, universal instantiation and existential generalization are two aspects of a single principle, for instead of saying that "∀x x = x" implies "Socrates = Socrates", we could as well say that the denial "Socrates  Socrates" implies "∃x x  x". The principle embodied in these two operations is the link between quantifications and the singular statements that are related to them as instances. Yet it is a principle only by courtesy. It holds only in the case where a term names and, furthermore, occurs referentially.[5]

gollark: * would have committed a crime under my proposed law, even
gollark: "committed a crime under my proposed law" doesn't mean "committed a crime".
gollark: *Did* they? I don't think it's illegal to accidentally introduce bugs.
gollark: Punishing someone after they do a thing doesn't mean that thing didn't happen, just makes other people (probably) want to do it less. People don't *want* exploits in their software, generally. It might make people more cautious, but I don't think it's worth the downsides.
gollark: Anyway, you compare it to the medical field, but that... obviously works very differently, and the licensing thing is a bit problematic there too.

See also

References

  1. Irving M. Copi; Carl Cohen; Kenneth McMahon (Nov 2010). Introduction to Logic. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0205820375.
  2. Hurley
  3. Moore and Parker
  4. Copi, Irving M. (1979). Symbolic Logic, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
  5. Willard Van Orman Quine; Roger F. Gibson (2008). "V.24. Reference and Modality". Quintessence. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. OCLC 728954096. Here: p. 366.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.