The term is used to indicate the assumption that what follows is chosen arbitrarily, narrowing the premise to a particular case, but does not affect the validity of the proof in general.
The other cases are sufficiently similar to the one presented that proving them follows by essentially the same logic.
In many scenarios, the use of "without loss of generality" is made possible by the presence of symmetry.
[2] For example, if some property P(x,y) of real numbers is known to be symmetric in x and y, namely that P(x,y) is equivalent to P(y,x), then in proving that P(x,y) holds for every x and y, one may assume "without loss of generality" that x ≤ y.
On the other hand, if neither such a symmetry nor another form of equivalence can be established, then the use of "without loss of generality" is incorrect and can amount to an instance of proof by example – a logical fallacy of proving a claim by proving a non-representative example.