I can rather easily imagine that some mathematician/logician had the idea to symbolize "it E xists" by $\exists$ – a reversed E – and after that some other (imitative) mathematician/logician had the idea to symbolize "for A ll" by $\forall$ – a reversed A. Or vice versa. (Maybe it was one and the same person.)
What is hard (for me) to imagine is, how the one who invented $\forall$ could fail to consider the notations $\vee$ and $\wedge$ such that today $(\forall x \in X) P(x)$ must be spelled out $\bigwedge_{x\in X} P(x)$ instead of $\bigvee_{x\in X}P(x)$? (Or vice versa.)
Since I know that this is not a real question, let me ask it like this: Where can I find more about this observation?
Best Answer
See Earliest Uses of Symbols of Set Theory and Logic for this and much more.