I am writing a paper on cognition, and to simplify my discussion I need an adjective or descriptor for particular category of argument as follows: I am arguing for the necessity of a construct with a set of particular properties, but I do not produce an example or identity of that construct. 'Hypothetical' is wrong, as I am claiming necessity of existence. 'Existence proof' might work, except I am trying to distinguish it from using exemplars or testable properties (that are also existence proofs, I guess). Is there a descriptor that is helpful for this purpose? Or does my question have some flaw?

The specific domain (in case it helps) is theory of computation; although there are 'proofs' of the sort described in this domain, I cannot find any discussion of the nature of such a proof as distinct from (say) proof by exemplar; I am also going to ask some mathematicians, but it doesn't seem to be a semantic problem in math or symbolic logic.. in math you simply pick a symbol and imbue it with properties (There exists an x such that x has the following properties..).

Any help/ideas appreciated.


Two descriptors that may fit the requirement are non-constructive proof and pure existence proof.

From wikipedia:

In mathematics, a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object by creating or providing a method for creating the object. This is in contrast to a non-constructive proof (also known as an existence proof or pure existence theorem), which proves the existence of a particular kind of object without providing an example. For avoiding confusion with the stronger concept that follows, such a constructive proof is sometimes called an effective proof.


How about metaproof?

I did a web search for the term, and found the following excerpt in a paper entitled, "'Metaproofs' (and their Cryptographic Applications)"1:

We develop a non-interactive proof-system which we call “Metaproof” (µ-NIZK proof system); it provides a proof of “the existence of a proof to a statement”. This metamathematical notion indeed seems redundant when we deal with proving N P statements, but in the context of zero-knowledge theory and cryptography it has a large variety of applications.

1 https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/495.pdf

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.