Description: Show that "there exists" with an implication is always true if there exists a situation where the antecedent is false.
Those inexperienced with formal notations of classical logic may use expressions combining "there exists" with implication. This is usually a mistake, because that combination does not mean what an inexperienced person might think it means. For example, if there is some object that does not meet the precondition ph , then the expression E. x ( ph -> ps ) as a whole is always true, no matter what ps is ( ps could even be false, F. ). New users of formal notation who use "there exists" with an implication should consider if they meant "and" instead of "implies". See eximp-surprise , which shows what implication really expands to. See also empty-surprise . (Contributed by David A. Wheeler, 18-Oct-2018)
Ref | Expression | ||
---|---|---|---|
Hypothesis | eximp-surprise2.1 | |- E. x -. ph |
|
Assertion | eximp-surprise2 | |- E. x ( ph -> ps ) |
Step | Hyp | Ref | Expression |
---|---|---|---|
1 | eximp-surprise2.1 | |- E. x -. ph |
|
2 | orc | |- ( -. ph -> ( -. ph \/ ps ) ) |
|
3 | 1 2 | eximii | |- E. x ( -. ph \/ ps ) |
4 | eximp-surprise | |- ( E. x ( ph -> ps ) <-> E. x ( -. ph \/ ps ) ) |
|
5 | 3 4 | mpbir | |- E. x ( ph -> ps ) |