Propositional Logic as a Calculus Flashcards
1. Natural Deduction Calculus 2. Axiomatic Calculus 3. GEB Calculus
When is an inference valid?
Whenever it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false, the inference is valid
What are two ways propositional logic is used?
- Express complex statements (trees)
- Conclude or infer certain statements from others (calculus)
Is entailment semantic or syntactic
Semantic
What is the notion of validity?
Semantic notion, since it refers to the meaning of wffs - in terms of its truth values.
Can be used to define when a wff A (conclusion) follows from the set of wffs (premises):
A wff A is a (semantic) consequence of a set of wffs A0, …, An (or A0, …, An entails A) if it is impossible that A0, …, An are all true and A is false at the same time. Write as:
A0, …, An ⊨ A
How can wffs be defined as a notion of validity?
A wff A is a (semantic) consequence of a set of wffs A0, …, An (or A0, …, An entails A) if it is impossible that A0, …, An are all true and A is false at the same time. Write as:
A0, …, An ⊨ A
How to know if the premises are true and the conclusion is false?
Try all the possible truth assignment values. Find the row were all the premises are true then look at the conclusion.
A0, …, An ⊨ A
T ⊨ F
Therefore, must be decidable and have a decision prodecure
What happens when the conclusion A in entailment (A0, …, An ⊨ A) is always true regardsless of the truth value assignment?
Then, it is a semantic consequence of the empty set, just written as ⊨ A
What is the difference between entailment and implication?
Truth Conditions Similar
Entialment: (⊨)
* Meta-langugae (How formulas relate to other formulas)
* Different kind of truth: taking about relation
* Semantic
Implication: (⊃)
* Formulas (language) and Object language: (Formula. Ex: (A ∧ B))
* Bivalence (true or false)
* Syntax
Natural Deduction Calculus
What is natural deduction calculus?
System allows to do proofs for natural logic + inference rules
Inference rules: written with premises above the horizontal line and a conlcusion below it
Read from top to bottom: formally deduce the conclusion from the premises.
Sets of formulas connected by inference rules
Natural Deduction Calculus
Modus Ponens:
That B follows from A ⊃ B expressed as a syntactic rule of inference: MODUS PONENS
Read from top to bottom: formally deduce the conclusion
Natural Deduction Calculus
What are the rules for conjuction
And-elimination and And-introduction
Allows the elimination of a conjuction symbol, thus “∧-Elim”.
Alternative, introduce a conjuction symbol, we need both A and B as premises.
Natural Deduction Calculus
Define a derivation or proof in NDC?
By applying one+ inference rules we obtain a derivation or proof in the form of a tree.
Natural Deduction Calculus
Natural Deduction Proof 1:
(A ∧ B ⊢ B ∧ A)
Meaning “⊢”:
Symbol for LOGICAL THEOREMS:
Means that Q is derivable from P in the system. Consistent with its use for derivability, a “⊢” followed by an expression without anything preceding it denotes a theorem, which is to say that the expression can be derived from the rules using an empty set of axioms.
Natural Deduction Calculus
How to write the conclusion of the tree in NDC?
Formulas top of a derivation tree are the premises (used multiple times in a derivation) and the conclusion is at the bottom of the tree.
If A is obtained by a derivation from the premises A0, …, An, we have:
A0, …, An ⊢ A
Natural Deduction Calculus
What is Implication Elimination?
Modus ponens eliminates an implication formula: “⊃-Elim”
Is (A ∧ B) and (B ∧ A) logically equivalent?
(A ∧ B) ≠ (B ∧ A)
Different formulas so not logically equivalent
Natural Deduction Calculus
Implication introduction:
Allows us to infer A ⊃ B, from a proof B from the assumption A.
* Original assumption of A becomes internalized in colcusion so it is dischanged from proof (expressed by square brackets around assumption [A])
* Discharged assumption does not count as an assumption in the proof and cannot be used fruther down the proof tree.
Open Assumptions: Assumptions that are not dischanged
Appying “⊃-Intro” rule to derivation in proof 1, both occurances of the assumption dischanged because they both appear above the formula tree.
Natural Deduction Calculus
What are open and closed assumptions?
Allows us to infer A ⊃ B, from a proof B from the assumption A.
* Original assumption of A becomes internalized in colcusion so it is dischanged from proof (expressed by square brackets around assumption [A])
* Discharged assumption does not count as an assumption in the proof and cannot be used fruther down the proof tree.
Open Assumptions: Assumptions that are not dischanged
Natural Deduction Calculus
What is the special case for implication elimination?
If “B” is true, then A= irrelevent.
Preserves truth
Natural Deduction Calculus
Derive A ⊃ (B ⊃ A) with no open assumptions:
What is logical theorem?
Only derived from logic, not other theorems
Formulas like A ⊃(A ⊃ B) which can only be proved in derivations without open assumptions are called logical theorems.
Use symbol (⊢)
Natural Deduction Calculus
Introduction Rules for Disjunction:
Natural Deduction Calculus
Elimination Rule for disjunction:
This is a structure for proof by cases
Natural Deduction Calculus
Formula for introduction and elimination rules for negation:
Symbol: “⊥” (propostion tha is always false - a contradiction)
Natural Deduction Calculus
Is a (A) = (~~ A)
Not the same formula (syntax)
Though they are logically equivalent (semantics)
In the GEB system, the “~~ “ can be cancelled out