Return to Question

The notion of $\textit{alphabetical variant}$ is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if A is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an $\textit{alphabetological}$ variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of $\textit{logical variant}$ and $\textit{alphabetological variant}$ have provenances?

The notion of alphabetical variant is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if $A$ is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an alphabetological variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of logical variant and alphabetological variant have provenances?

The notion of alphabetical variant is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if A is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an alphabetological variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of logical variant and alphabetological variant have provenances?

The notion of $\textit{alphabetical variant}$ is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if A is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an $\textit{alphabetological}$ variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of $\textit{logical variant}$ and $\textit{alphabetological variant}$ have provenances?

The notion of alphabetical variant is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if A is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an $alphabetological$ variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of $logical \ variant$ and $alphabetological \ variant$ have provenances?

The notion of alphabetical variant is well known, so that a formula $x=x$ is an alphabetical variant of $y=y$ if $x$ and $y$ are distinct variables.

One may want to consider the set term $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ a logical variant of $\{x:x \neq x \}$ if A is a tautology of predicate logic. Given such notions of alphabetical and logical variants, one may consider $\{x:x \neq x \wedge A \}$ an alphabetological variant of $\{y:y \neq y\}$.

Do my notions of logical variant and alphabetological variant have provenances?