Scribd
Upload
104 views1 page

The Order of Mixed Quantifiers

The order of quantifiers (universal or existential) in a sentence matters when they are mixed, but not when they are the same. When quantifiers are mixed, putting the universal quantifier first (∀x∃y) results in a weaker statement than putting the existential quantifier first (∃y∀x). Specifically, a sentence of the form ∃y∀x logically implies but is not equivalent to the same sentence with the quantifiers reversed as ∀x∃y. Reversing quantifiers can change the meaning from something plausible to something nearly logically false.

Uploaded by

No12n533
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
104 views1 page

The Order of Mixed Quantifiers

The order of quantifiers (universal or existential) in a sentence matters when they are mixed, but not when they are the same. When quantifiers are mixed, putting the universal quantifier first (∀x∃y) results in a weaker statement than putting the existential quantifier first (∃y∀x). Specifically, a sentence of the form ∃y∀x logically implies but is not equivalent to the same sentence with the quantifiers reversed as ∀x∃y. Reversing quantifiers can change the meaning from something plausible to something nearly logically false.

Uploaded by

No12n533
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

The Order of Mixed Quantifiers

For those who are having trouble understanding the “quantifier switch” fallacy, the following
discussion should help.

When quantifiers in the same sentence are of the same quantity (all
universal or all existential), the order in which they occur does not
matter. But when they are mixed, the order in which they occur becomes
crucial. Consider these examples:

∀x ∀y Likes(x, y) ⇔ ∀y ∀x Likes(x, y)
∃x ∃y Likes(x, y) ⇔ ∃y ∃x Likes(x, y)

These are clearly equivalent pairs. The first pair contains two different
ways of saying everyone likes everyone. The second contains two
different ways of saying someone likes someone.

Now consider this mixed quantifier case:

∀x ∃y Likes(x, y) ⇔ ∃y ∀x Likes(x, y)

Clearly these are not equivalent sentences. The one on the left says (very
plausibly) that everyone likes someone (or other), but allows for the
possibility that different people have different likes—I like Edgar
Martinez, you like Ken Griffey, Jr., Madonna likes herself, etc. The one
on the right, however, says something much stronger—it says that there
is at least one person so well liked that everyone likes him or her. (It’s
very unlikely that there is such a person, and so very unlikely that the
sentence on the right is true.)

Notice that the stronger sentence (on the right) logically implies the
weaker one (on the left). In general, an ∃∀ sentence logically implies
its ∀∃ counterpart, but not conversely.

For a more dramatic contrast, consider this pair of sentences:

∀x ∃y x = y ⇔ ∃y ∀x x =y

Again, these are not equivalent. The one on the left is a logical truth; it
says everything is identical to something. The one on the right says there
is something such that everything is identical to that thing, and this
comes very close to being logically false. (It is not logically false,
because there are at least some worlds in which it is true. Can you think
of one?)

You might also like