2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
---
|
2022-08-20 13:00:04 +01:00
|
|
|
categories:
|
2022-12-25 15:00:05 +00:00
|
|
|
- Logic
|
|
|
|
tags: [propositional-logic]
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-25 15:00:05 +00:00
|
|
|
# Formal proofs in propositional logic
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
When we construct a formal proof in logic we are seeking to show that a certain
|
|
|
|
proposition is **derivable** from other propositions. We use the words
|
|
|
|
_derivation_ and _proof_ interchangeably.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
> A sentence $P$ is derivable in a system of propositional logic from a finite
|
|
|
|
> set of sentences if and only if there is a derivation in this system in which
|
|
|
|
> all and only the members of the set are **primary assumptions** and $P$ is the
|
|
|
|
> sentence on the last line.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
We express the above symbolically as $\Gamma \vdash P$ . (Be careful not to
|
|
|
|
confuse _derivable_ ($\vdash$) from _entails_ ($\vDash$).
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
Derivability is therefore a property that a proposition can possess relative to
|
|
|
|
a set.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For instance to demonstrate derivability for:
|
2022-09-06 13:26:44 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
$$
|
2022-12-25 15:00:05 +00:00
|
|
|
\{ \lnot F \lor D, F, D \rightarrow (G \land H) \} \vdash G \land H
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
$$
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
We would establish $\lnot F \lor D, F, D \rightarrow (G \land H)$ as primary
|
|
|
|
assumptions and then, using the derivation rules of the system conclude with
|
|
|
|
$G\land H$. Every sentence in the derivation is either a **primary assumption**
|
|
|
|
or an **auxiliary** assumption or justified by the rules of the derivation.
|
2022-12-25 15:30:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
An auxiliary assumption is an assumption belonging to a sub-derivation. Primary
|
|
|
|
assumptions belong to the main derivation. For any given derivation of the form
|
|
|
|
$\Gamma \vdash P$ there may be a number of ways of demonstrating the derivation
|
|
|
|
(more than one application of the rules governing the system) but one alone is
|
|
|
|
sufficient to establish derivability.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
> We will tend to use the terms _derivation_ and _proof_ interchangeably but we
|
|
|
|
> should note that there is a technical distinction in that a **proof is a
|
|
|
|
> derivation in which all of the assumptions have been discharged**
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Constructing proofs
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
We place assumptions above derivations and mark them _A_ in the right-hand
|
|
|
|
margin. We use a shorthand for the derivation rules and also place these in the
|
|
|
|
right-hand margin.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
We divide assumptions from derivations with a horizontal line. We number each
|
|
|
|
line and use this to refer to the line we are applying the derivation to.
|
|
|
|
Sub-proofs follow this structure recursively. This is known as _Fitch notation_
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-25 15:30:05 +00:00
|
|
|
_Schematically_:
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-29 20:22:34 +00:00
|
|
|

|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-25 15:30:05 +00:00
|
|
|
_Applied example_:
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-29 20:22:34 +00:00
|
|
|

|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Sub-proofs
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
When a sub-proof is terminated, the assumption with which it starts is said to
|
|
|
|
be _discharged_. It's conclusion can then be drawn upon and invoked within the
|
|
|
|
main proof by reference to its start and end line number. However statements
|
|
|
|
within the sub-proof cannot be referred to again from within the main proof,
|
|
|
|
only its result.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Derivation rules
|
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
Derivation rules are
|
|
|
|
[syntactic](/Logic/Propositional_logic/Syntax_of_sentential_logic.md) rather
|
|
|
|
than semantic. They are applied on the basis of their form rather than on the
|
|
|
|
basis of the truth conditions of the sentences they are applied to.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
> Derivation rules can be applied without having an interpretation of the
|
|
|
|
> symbols in mind. A derivation rule tells us that: given a group of symbols
|
|
|
|
> with a certain structure, we can write down another group of symbols with a
|
|
|
|
> certain structure.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-02-02 15:58:13 +00:00
|
|
|
Each of the main logical connectives has an associated derivation rule. The
|
|
|
|
binary connectives have pairs of rules, one for the introduction of the
|
|
|
|
connective and one for its elimination.
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-09-06 13:26:44 +01:00
|
|
|
The main derivation rules:
|
2022-04-23 13:26:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-12-25 15:30:05 +00:00
|
|
|
- [Negation Introduction](/Logic/Proofs/Negation_Introduction.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Negation Elimination](/Logic/Proofs/Negation_Elimination.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Conjunction Introduction](/Logic/Proofs/Conjunction_Introduction.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Conjunction Elimination](/Logic/Proofs/Conditional_Elimination.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Disjunction Introduction](/Logic/Proofs/Disjunction_Introduction.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Disjunction Elimination](/Logic/Proofs/Disjunction_Elimination.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Conditional Introduction](/Logic/Proofs/Conditional_Introduction.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Disjunction Elimination](/Logic/Proofs/Disjunction_Elimination.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Biconditional Introduction](/Logic/Proofs/Biconditional_Introduction.md)
|
|
|
|
- [Biconditional Elimination](/Logic/Proofs/Biconditional_Elimination.md)
|