* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Discrete Computational Structures (CS 225) Definition of Formal Proof
Meaning (philosophy of language) wikipedia , lookup
Nyāya Sūtras wikipedia , lookup
Gödel's incompleteness theorems wikipedia , lookup
Turing's proof wikipedia , lookup
Analytic–synthetic distinction wikipedia , lookup
History of logic wikipedia , lookup
Jesús Mosterín wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup
Axiom of reducibility wikipedia , lookup
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
Foundations of mathematics wikipedia , lookup
Double negative wikipedia , lookup
Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup
Curry–Howard correspondence wikipedia , lookup
Interpretation (logic) wikipedia , lookup
Sequent calculus wikipedia , lookup
Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup
Law of thought wikipedia , lookup
Natural deduction wikipedia , lookup
Principia Mathematica wikipedia , lookup
Discrete Computational Structures (CS 225) Definition of Formal Proof A formal proof in our system of propositional logic is a series of statements, leading from some premises to some conclusion, where each step in the series is logically justified in some way. More precisely, if we have premises, consisting of a set of logical statements: P = {P1 , P2 , . . . , Pk } and a conclusion, consisting of a logical statement, C, then a proof of C from P is a finite sequence of logical statements: S1 S2 .. . Sn where the last line is the conclusion, Sn = C, and each statement Si is either: 1. A member of the premise set, Si = Pj ∈ P. 2. A result of applying one of the logical equivalency rules (text, p. 35) to a previous statement in the proof. 3. A result of applying one of the valid argument forms (text, p. 61) to one or more previous statements in the proof. When we write a proof, we will number each line, and justify it by citing its source. When justifying the application of equivalency rules and argument forms, we will give the name of the logical principle we are using, along with the line number(s) to which the rule or form is applied. For example, we can easily prove the conclusion, p∧q, from the premise set {∼∼p, ∼∼q} as follows: 1. ∼∼p [Premise] 2. ∼∼q [Premise] 3. ∼∼p ∧ ∼∼q [Conjunction: 1, 2] 4. ∼∼p ∧ q [Double Negative: 3] 5. p ∧ q [Double Negative: 4] (Note that this uses the valid argument form, Conjunction, from the text, page 61, and the logical equivalence, Double Negative, from page 35.) 1 2