CS243, Logic and Computation Propositional Logic 1 Propositions
... upper formula is false, while the lower formula is true. Because of this ambiguity, we need to agree on which of the two options is to be used. The usual convention is that not binds more tightly than any binary operator (e.g., and, or). Hence, the original formula would be interpreted as the upper ...
... upper formula is false, while the lower formula is true. Because of this ambiguity, we need to agree on which of the two options is to be used. The usual convention is that not binds more tightly than any binary operator (e.g., and, or). Hence, the original formula would be interpreted as the upper ...
![overhead 7/conditional proof [ov]](http://s1.studyres.com/store/data/001382039_1-0b1da7da92f361d09e7b75df5e92d0f1-300x300.png)
A Contraction-free and Cut-free Sequent Calculus for
... is well-defined. Indeed, there are several equivalent axiomatisations of P DL (see for example [4, 7]), each of which is obtained by adding to classical propositional logic: (i) the distribution axiom schema, that now has the form: [α](A → B) → ([α]A → [α]B), for each program α; (ii) modus ponens and ...
... is well-defined. Indeed, there are several equivalent axiomatisations of P DL (see for example [4, 7]), each of which is obtained by adding to classical propositional logic: (i) the distribution axiom schema, that now has the form: [α](A → B) → ([α]A → [α]B), for each program α; (ii) modus ponens and ...
