* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PDF
Turing's proof wikipedia , lookup
Model theory wikipedia , lookup
Foundations of mathematics wikipedia , lookup
Peano axioms wikipedia , lookup
History of logic wikipedia , lookup
Gödel's incompleteness theorems wikipedia , lookup
Georg Cantor's first set theory article wikipedia , lookup
Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup
Arrow's impossibility theorem wikipedia , lookup
Combinatory logic wikipedia , lookup
Sequent calculus wikipedia , lookup
Quantum logic wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
Modal logic wikipedia , lookup
Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup
Law of thought wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical proof wikipedia , lookup
Curry–Howard correspondence wikipedia , lookup
syntactic properties of a normal modal logic∗ CWoo† 2013-03-22 3:59:33 Recall that a normal modal logic is a logic containing all tautologies, the schema K (A → B) → (A → B), and closed under modus ponens and necessitation rules. Also, the modal operator diamond is defined as A := ¬¬A. Let Λ be any normal modal logic. We write ` A to mean Λ ` A, or wff A ∈ Λ, or A is a theorem of Λ. In addition, for any set ∆, ∆ ` A means there is a finite sequence of wff’s such that each wff is either a theorem, a member of ∆, or obtained either by modus ponens or necessitation from earlier wff’s in the sequence, and A is the last wff in the sequence. The sequence is called a deduction (of A) from ∆. Below are some useful meta-theorems of Λ: 1. (RM) ` A → B implies ` A → B Proof. By assumption and by necessitation, ` (A → B), by schema K and by modus ponens, we have the result. 2. As a result, ` A ↔ B implies ` A ↔ B. 3. (substitution theorem). If ` Bi ↔ Ci for i = 1, . . . , m, then ` A[B/p] ↔ A[C/p], where p := (p1 , . . . , pm ) is the tuple of all the propositional variables in A listed in order. ∗ hSyntacticPropertiesOfANormalModalLogici created: h2013-03-2i by: hCWooi version: h42558i Privacy setting: h1i hDefinitioni h03B45i † 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 Proof. For most of the proof, consult this entry for more detail. What remains is the case when A has the form D. We do induction on the number n of ’s in A. The case when n = 0 means that A is a wff of PLc , and has already been proved. Now suppose A has n + 1 ’s. Then D has n ’s, and so by induction, ` D[B/p] ↔ D[C/p], and therefore ` D[B/p] ↔ D[C/p] by 2. This means that ` A[B/p] ↔ A[C/p]. 4. ` A → B implies ` A → B Proof. By assumption, tautology ` (A → B) → (¬B → ¬A), and modus ponens, we get ` ¬B → ¬A. By 1, ` ¬B → ¬A. By another instance of the above tautology and modus ponens, and the definition of , we get the result. 5. ` A ∨ B implies ` A ∨ B Proof. Since ` A∨B ↔ (¬A → B), we have ` ¬A → B, so ` ¬A → B. By the tautology C ↔ ¬¬C, we have ` ¬¬¬A → B, or ` ¬ A → B, and therefore ` A ∨ B. 6. (RR) ` A ∧ B → C implies ` A ∧ B → C Proof. By assumption and 1, ` (A ∧ B) → C. Since A ∧ B → (A ∧ B) is a theorem (see here), we get ` A ∧ B → C by the law of syllogism. 7. (RK) More generally, ` A1 ∧· · ·∧An → A implies ` A1 ∧· · · An → A, where the case n = 0 is the necessitation rule. Proof. Cases n = 1, 2 are meta-theorems 1 and 6. If ` A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An ∧ An+1 → A, or ` (A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An ) ∧ An+1 → A, then ` (A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An ) ∧ An+1 → A by 6. But ` (A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An ) ↔ A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An , the result follows. 8. Define a function s on {¬, λ}, where λ is the empty word, such that s(¬) = λ, the empty word, and s(λ) = ¬. Then for any wff A, and 1 , 2 ∈ {¬, λ}: ` 1 n 2 A ↔ s(1 ) n s(2 )A. Technically speaking, this is really an infinite collection of theorem schemas. Proof. We will check the case when 1 = ¬ and 2 = λ and leave the rest to the reader. We do induction on n. If n = 0, then we have the tautology ¬A ↔ ¬A. Suppose ` ¬n A ↔ n ¬A. Then ` ¬n+1 A ↔ n ¬A, by applying the induction case on wff A. Since A ↔ ¬¬A is a tautology, ` ¬n+1 A ↔ n ¬¬¬A by the substitution theorem. By the definition of , we have ` ¬n+1 A ↔ n+1 ¬A. 2 9. Let ∆ := {A | A ∈ ∆}. Then ∆ ` A implies ∆ ` A. Proof. Induct on the length n of deduction of A from ∆. If n = 0, then either ` A, in which case ` A by necessitation, or A ∈ ∆, in which case A ∈ ∆. In either case, ∆ ` A. Next suppose the property holds for all deductions of length n, and there is a deduction E of A of length n + 1. If A is obtained from ∆ by necessitation, say A is B, where B is in E, then a subsequence of E is a deduction of B of length ≤ n, from ∆. So by induction, ∆ ` B, or ∆ ` A. By necessitation, ∆ ` A. Finally, if A is obtained by modus ponens, then there is a wff B such that B, B → A are both in E. By induction, ∆ ` B and ∆ ` (B → A), which, by K and modus ponens, ∆ ` B → A, and as a result, ∆ ` A by modus ponens. Noticeably absent is the deduction theorem, for the necessitation rule says A ` A, but this does not imply ` A → A. In fact, the wff A → A is not a theorem in general, unless of course the logic includes the entire schema. All we can say is the following: 10. (deduction theorem) If ∆, A ` B and B is not of the form C, then ∆ ` A → B. Remark. It can be shown that conversely, if a modal logic obeys meta-theorem 7 above as an inference rule, then it is normal. For more detail, see here. 3