(=/ stands for invalidity)

VxVy((Sx=Sy)x=y) =/ Vx~(Sx=0)

Interpretation for 8a
U: [0,1,2]
J[0] = 0
J[S] = {(0,1) (1,2) (2,0)}

8a. This interpretation shows that the given argument is in fact invalid. What the left side
of this invalidity claim says is for all X and for all Y, if the successor of X is equal to the
successor of Y, the X and Y are equal. This also says in a way that no two outputs can be
the same unless the inputs are the same. What the right side says is for all X, there is no
X such that 0 is the successor of X or, more concisely Zero is not the successor of any
X. Invalidity occurs when we have true premises but a false conclusion, the left side
being our premise and the right side being our Conclusion. This interpretation makes our
left side (premise) true, and our right side (conclusion) false, effectively showing
invalidity. Interpreting our successor function [S], and giving an output for each possible
input (each object in our universe) we can see that no two inputs have the same output;
they are all different. Under the possible term assignment where Sx and Sy would be the
same, we can see that it is necessitated by our interpretation that under this assignment, x
and y are also the same, again because no two outputs are the same. Therefore, because of
the fact that every input has an output different from one another, and because this shows
that under the term assignment, where Sx and Sy would be the same, x and y are equal,
this interpretation makes our premise true. However, this interpretation also makes our
conclusion false. Our conclusion says that no X has zero as a successor, or in more
abstract terms, no input for the function [S] has what we make our constant as an output.
Under this interpretation, we have made zero our constant, and we can clearly see that
when X corresponds to 2, zero is the output, saying that 2 has 0 as its successor. This fact
makes the conclusion false. Because our premise is true and conclusion false under this
interpretation, we have shown invalidity.

Interpretation for 8b
U: [0,1,2]
J[0]: 0
J[S]: { (0,1) (1,2) (2,1) }

8b. Again, for 8b, we are showing invalidity, but with the conclusion for 8a as our
premise, and our premise for 8a as our conclusion. Therefore, we want to show that 0
being the successor of no number is true, and that for any x and y, if Sx and Sy are equal,
then x and y are equal, is false. As we can see, this interpretation accomplishes this. We
do not have any output for J[S] as 0, meaning that no X has 0 as a successor. However, 0
and 2 have the same output, and as we can clearly see, these are different inputs.
Therefore, this makes the conclusion for 8b false. Again, a true premise and a false
conclusion effectively shows invalidity.
EC. There is in fact no finite universe that can make both of these claims true. Given
an interpretation, one is always going to be false when the other one is true. This is due to
what these two claims actually mean, and this meaning makes them incompatible
together. In order to make it where no two outputs are the same for every object in our
universe, thereby satisfying the VxVy((Sx=Sy)x=y) claim, we must pair every possible
input with an output different from everything else. This means that inevitably, we will
have an input that has what me make our constant 0as an output. If this is the case
however, the claim which says no input has our constant as an output Vx~(Sx=0) is not
satisfied. In order to satisfy the claim which says no input has our constant as an output,
we can not make use of our constant when pairing inputs with outputs. Again however,
what this inevitably means is that two inputs are going to have the same output, since we
are working with one less possible object in our universe to use as an output, what we
make as our constant. However, if two inputs have the same output, those inputs would
have to be equal in order to satisfy our first claim. Since we can not use our constant
however, the inputs would in fact be different, making our first claim not satisfied.
Therefore, there exists no finite universe and interpretation which makes both of
these claims true.