* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download compactness slides
Peano axioms wikipedia , lookup
Law of thought wikipedia , lookup
Meaning (philosophy of language) wikipedia , lookup
Quantum logic wikipedia , lookup
Computability theory wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical proof wikipedia , lookup
Structure (mathematical logic) wikipedia , lookup
Truth-bearer wikipedia , lookup
List of first-order theories wikipedia , lookup
Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup
Model theory wikipedia , lookup
Propositional formula wikipedia , lookup
History of the function concept wikipedia , lookup
Boolean satisfiability problem wikipedia , lookup
Computable function wikipedia , lookup
Non-standard calculus wikipedia , lookup
Recursion (computer science) wikipedia , lookup
Interpretation (logic) wikipedia , lookup
Compactness First order logic Alexander Clark Autumn 2014 Compactness theorem Compactness theorem if every finite subset of a set Φ of wffs is satisfiable, then Φ is satisfiable. Alternative: contrapositive If Φ α then there is a finite subset Φ0 ⊆ Φ such that Φ0 α. Compactness Definition A set Φ of wffs is finitely satisfiable if every finite subset Σ of Φ is satisfiable. Compactness theorem Φ is satisfiable if and only if it is finitely satisfiable. Proof: I ⇒ is immediate. I ⇐ is immediate if Φ is finite I So we just need to show that if Φ is infinite and finitely satisfiable then it is satisfiable. We do this by constructing a v that satisfies Φ. Extending Φ We enumerate all wff: α1 , α2 , . . . Now we define the following enumeration of sets of wffs: Φ0 = Φ Φn+1 ( Φn ; αn+1 = Φn ; (¬αn+1 ) if this is finitely satisfiable otherwise [ Φ̄ = Φn n∈N Note: we are making things harder . . . Claim 1 Φ̄ is finitely satisfiable. We show that for all n, Φn is finitely satisfiable, by induction on n. I I Base case: Φ0 is fs. Inductive step: suppose Φn is fs. We want to show that Φn+1 is. I I I Suppose Φn is fs, but neither Φn ; αn+1 nor Φn ; ¬αn+1 is. Then we have finite subsets of Φn , Γ1 , Γ2 such that Γ1 ; αn+1 is unsatisfiable and Γ2 ; ¬αn+1 is unsatisfiable. This means that Γ1 ∪ Γ2 is unsatisfiable. (if v satisfied it, what could v̄ (αn+1 ) be?) This contradicts the fs of Φn . I This establishes that for all n, Φn is fs. I Suppose Φ̄ was not fs; then there would be some finite subset Γ that was not fs. I But if it is finite, then it must be included in some Φn for sufficiently large n, and this would mean that that Φn was not fs. Contradiction. Therefore Φ̄ is fs. Claim 2 For every wff α, (¬α) ∈ Φ̄ iff α 6∈ Φ̄. Proof: I We can’t have {α, (¬α)} both in Φ̄ as this would be a finite unsatisfiable set. I Conversely, suppose α 6∈ Φ̄. α occurs somewhere in the enumeration that we used to construct Φ̄. Say α = αn . If αn is not in Φn , then (¬αn ) must be in Φn and thus in Φ̄. Now we need to show that Φ̄ is satisfiable, which will imply that Φ is, because Φ ⊆ Φ̄. We do this by explicitly constructing a truth assignment v that satisfies Φ. For every sentence symbol Ai we define ( T if Ai ∈ Φ̄ v (Ai ) = F if Ai 6∈ Φ̄ Note that this is the only possibility! No other truth assignment could satisfy Φ̄, though there might be many ones that satisfy Φ. Claim For all wff α, v̄ (α) = T iff α ∈ Φ̄. This implies that v satisfies Φ̄. Prove that v̄ (α) = T iff α ∈ Φ̄ Proof by induction on complexity of α. I Base case: α = Ai . True by construction of v . Prove that v̄ (α) = T iff α ∈ Φ̄ Induction: negation Suppose α = (¬β). I v̄ (α) = T I iff v̄ (β) = F (by definition of v̄ ) I iff β 6∈ Φ̄ (by induction) I iff (¬β) ∈ Φ̄ (by maximality) Induction: conjunction Suppose α = (β ∧ γ). We have to show: v̄ (α) = T ⇔ (β ∧ γ) ∈ Φ̄ ⇒ I v̄ (α) = T I then v̄ (β) = T and v̄ (γ) = T I then β ∈ Φ̄ and γ ∈ Φ̄ I Suppose (β ∧ γ) 6∈ Φ̄. I Then (¬(β ∧ γ)) ∈ Φ̄. I But {β, γ, (¬(β ∧ γ))} is unsatisfiable; which is a contradiction. Induction: conjunction Suppose α = (β ∧ γ). We have to show: v̄ (α) = T ⇔ (β ∧ γ) ∈ Φ̄ ⇐ I If (β ∧ γ) ∈ Φ̄ I then β ∈ Φ̄ since we cannot have (¬β) in the set or it would be unsatisfiable. I And similarly γ ∈ Φ̄ I So v̄ (β) = T and v̄ (γ) = T (by induction) I therefore v̄ (β ∧ γ) = T (by definition of v̄ ). Analogously for the other connectives, where we have to show: I β ∈ Φ̄ or γ ∈ Φ̄ iff (β ∨ γ) ∈ Φ̄ I β 6∈ Φ̄ or γ ∈ Φ̄ iff (β → γ) ∈ Φ̄ I β, γ ∈ Φ̄ or β, γ 6∈ Φ̄ iff (β ↔ γ) ∈ Φ̄ Therefore v satisfies Φ̄. Since Φ ⊆ Φ̄, v also satisfies Φ. This finishes the proof of the compactness theorem. Corollaries of the compactness theorem I If Φ α then there is a finite subset Φ0 ⊆ Φ such that Φ0 α. I So if φ α then there is a tautology of the form (α1 ∧ · · · ∧ αn ) → α such that {α1 , . . . , αn } ⊆ Φ. Maximally satisfiable set I Φ̄ is a maximally satisfiable set. Adding only one new wff to Φ̄ would result in an unsatisfiable set (why?), hence the maximality. I It is satisfiable, but there is only one, unique, truth assignment that satisfies this. (Because for any sentence symbol Ai either Ai or (¬Ai ) is in Φ̄. I So there is a one-one correspondence between truth assignments and maximally satisfiable sets. In other words: A set Γ is maximally satisfiable if and only it is of the form Γ = {α ∈ WFF | v̄ (α) = T} for some truth assignment v . We are now going to consider the definitions of the language and its semantics from an abstract perspective. What are the properties of the language that make the semantics possible? The essential properties will turn out to be 1. the inductive definition of the language on the basis of a set of sentence symbols, 2. The unique readability of the well-formed formulas. We define abstractions of (1) in the notion of inductive sets that are freely generated from the basic element (an abstraction of (2)). In that case, the recursion theorem guarantees that any mapping v from the set of basic elements to a set V can be homomorphically extended to a mapping v̄ mapping the whole inductive set to V . What is special about the language of Sentential Logic and its truth assignments is that the latter are mappings to a set V with two elements. Abstract Induction We have an initial set B ⊆ U and a set F of functions. As an example F = {f , g}, f : U × U 7→ U, g : U 7→ U. (Think of U as the set of all L-strings, B as the set of sentential letters, f as ∧ and g as ¬.) A subset S of U is closed under F if x, y ∈ S ⇒ f (x, y ) ∈ S, g(x) ∈ S A set C ⊆ U is inductive if 1. B ⊆ C 2. C is closed under f , g Let C ∗ be the intersection of all inductive sets. Fact: C ∗ is inductive and it is the smallest inductive set. We call C ∗ the set generated from B by the functions in F. C ∗ is freely generated from B by F if 1. The functions in F restricted to C ∗ are one-to-one 2. The ranges of the restrictions of the functions in F to C ∗ and B are mutually disjoint Abstract Induction and the Definition of wffs We now formulate the definition of the language of Sentential Logic in the abstract framework. Let B be the set of all sentence symbols, let U be the set of all L-strings, and let F consist of the 5 formula building operations 1. E¬ (α) = (¬α) 2. E∧ (α, β) = (α ∧ β) 3. E∨ , E→ , E↔ similarly defined Example (A ∧ ((¬B) → C)) = E∧ (A, E→ (E¬ (A), C)) Note that if α is not a sentential symbol then either it is E¬ (β) for some β or E (β, γ) for some binary connective . That is, every wff α can be expressed in terms of formula building operations and sentence symbols. The language of sentential logic, that is, the set of all wffs, corresponds to C ∗ , the intersection of all inductive sets w.r.t. B and F. By the unique readability theorem C ∗ is freely generated from the set of sentence symbols by the functions in F. This guarantees the uniqueness of the extension of truth assignment v to v̄ by the recursion theorem below. Abstract Recursion Let set C ∗ be generated from set B by the functions in F. (We let F = {f , g} as under abstract induction) To define a function h on C ∗ recursively we need I Rules for computing h(x) for x ∈ B I Rules for computing h(f (x, y )) using h(x) and h(y ) I Rules for computing h(g(x)) using h(x). If we have these rules, then there is at most one function h satisfying the requirements. If C ∗ is freely generated, then there is exactly one such function. Recursion theorem Assume that a subset C ∗ of U is freely generated from B by f and g. Assume that V is a set and F , G and h functions such that h : B 7→ V and F : V × V 7→ V and G : V 7→ V then there is a unique function h̄ : C ∗ 7→ V such that: I h̄(x) = h(x) for x ∈ B I h̄(f (x, y )) = F (h̄(x), h̄(y )), for x, y ∈ C ∗ I h̄(g(x)) = G(h̄(x)), for c ∈ C ∗ Abstract Recursion and the Definition of the Semantics In the recursive definition of the truth assignment v̄ we have: I B=L I C ∗ is the set of all wff I V = {T, F} I h = v , a function from B to V Abstract Recursion and the Definition of the Semantics With each formula building operation in F we associate an operation on the set of truth values: I With E¬ we have F¬ defined as F¬ (T) = F and F¬ (F) = true I With E∧ we have a binary function F∧ defined by the truth x y F∧ (x, y ) T T T table: T F F F T F F F F The other functions F∨ , F→ , F↔ are defined analogously. I Then v̄ is the unique function (h̄) from wffs to V guaranteed by the recursion theorem.