* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PDF
Fuzzy logic wikipedia , lookup
Jesús Mosterín wikipedia , lookup
Novum Organum wikipedia , lookup
Abductive reasoning wikipedia , lookup
History of the function concept wikipedia , lookup
Model theory wikipedia , lookup
Foundations of mathematics wikipedia , lookup
Gödel's incompleteness theorems wikipedia , lookup
Modal logic wikipedia , lookup
History of logic wikipedia , lookup
List of first-order theories wikipedia , lookup
Interpretation (logic) wikipedia , lookup
Propositional formula wikipedia , lookup
First-order logic wikipedia , lookup
Naive set theory wikipedia , lookup
Combinatory logic wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical proof wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
Quantum logic wikipedia , lookup
Peano axioms wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup
Principia Mathematica wikipedia , lookup
Axiom of reducibility wikipedia , lookup
Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup
Law of thought wikipedia , lookup
Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup
deduction theorem holds for intuitionistic propositional logic∗ CWoo† 2013-03-22 3:53:41 In this entry, we show that the deduction theorem below holds for intuitionistic propositional logic. We use the axiom system provided in this entry. Theorem 1. If ∆, A `i B, where ∆ is a set of wff ’s of the intuitionistic propositional logic, then ∆ `i A → B. The proof is very similar to that of the classical propositional logic, given here, in that it uses induction on the length of the deduction of B. In fact, the proof is simpler as only two axiom schemas are used: A → (B → A) and (A → B) → ((A → (B → C)) → (A → C)). Proof. There are two main cases to consider: • If B is an axiom or in ∆ ∪ {A}, then B, B → (A → B), A → B is a deduction of A → B from ∆, where A → B is obtained by modus ponens applied to B and the axiom B → (A → B). So ∆ `i A → B. • Now, suppose that A1 , . . . , A n is a deduction of B from ∆ ∪ {A}, with B obtained from earlier formulas by modus ponens. We use induction on the length n of deduction of B. Note that n ≥ 3. If n = 3, then C and C → B are either axioms or in ∆ ∪ {A}. – If C is A, then C → B is either an axiom or in ∆. So ∆ `i A → B. ∗ hDeductionTheoremHoldsForIntuitionisticPropositionalLogici created: h2013-03-2i by: hCWooi version: h42502i Privacy setting: h1i hTheoremi h03F55i h03B20i † This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. You can reuse this document or portions thereof only if you do so under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. 1 – If C → B is A, then C is either an axiom or in ∆. Then E0 , C → (A → C), C, A → C, (A → C) → ((A → (C → B)) → (A → B)), (A → (C → B)) → (A → B), A → B is a deduction of A → B from ∆, where E0 is a deduction of the theorem A → A, followed by an axiom instance, then C, then the result of modus ponens, then an axiom instance, and finally two applications of modus ponens. Note the second to the last formula is just (A → A) → (A → B). – If C and C → B are axioms or in ∆, then ∆ `i A → B based on the deduction C, C → B, B, B → (A → B), A → B. Next, assume there is a deduction E of B of length n > 3. So one of the earlier formulas is Ak → B, and a subsequence of E is a deduction of Ak → B, which has length less than n, and therefore by induction, ∆ `i A → (Ak → B). Likewise, a subsequence of E is a deduction of Ak , so by induction, ∆ `i A → Ak . With the axiom instance (A → Ak ) → ((A → (Ak → B)) → (A → B)), and two applications of modus ponens, we get ∆ `i A → B as required. In both cases, ∆ `i A → B, and the proof is complete. Remark The deduction theorem can be used to prove the deduction theorem for the first and second order intuitionistic predicate logic. References [1] J. W. Robbin, Mathematical Logic, A First Course, Dover Publication (2006) 2