Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Natural Deduction For Propositional Logic

    Uploaded by

    vincentshi1710
    22 views31 pages
    This document introduces natural deduction proofs for propositional logic. [1] Natural deduction proofs are represented as trees of sentences. [2] Rules are provided for the connectives such as introduction and elimination rules for conjunction, implication, disjunction, negation, and biconditional. [3] It is shown that natural deduction proofs correspond to valid arguments, so if a sentence is provable it is logically valid.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    4. Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document introduces natural deduction proofs for propositional logic. [1] Natural deduction proofs are represented as trees of sentences. [2] Rules are provided for the connectives such as introduction and elimination rules for conjunction, implication, disjunction, negation, and biconditional. [3] It is shown that natural deduction proofs correspond to valid arguments, so if a sentence is provable it is logically valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    22 views31 pages

    Natural Deduction For Propositional Logic

    Uploaded by

    vincentshi1710
    This document introduces natural deduction proofs for propositional logic. [1] Natural deduction proofs are represented as trees of sentences. [2] Rules are provided for the connectives such as introduction and elimination rules for conjunction, implication, disjunction, negation, and biconditional. [3] It is shown that natural deduction proofs correspond to valid arguments, so if a sentence is provable it is logically valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 31

    elementary logic

    intro to philosophy

    Natural Deduction
    for Propositional Logic

    Dr Carlo Nicolai
    PROOFS AND VALIDITY
    another approach to validity
    proofs in natural deduction

    Proofs in Natural Deduction are trees of L1 -sentences

    P→Q [P]
    Q
    ¬P ∨ Q [¬(¬P ∨ Q)]
    ¬P
    ¬P ∨ Q [¬(¬P ∨ Q)]
    ¬P ∨ Q
    RULES FOR → AND ∧
    rules for ∧

    ∧Intro
    The result of appending φ ∧ ψ to a proof of φ and a proof
    of ψ is a proof of φ ∧ ψ.

    .. ..
    . .
    φ ψ
    ∧Intro
    φ∧ψ
    rules for ∧

    ∧Elim1 and ∧Elim2


    (1) The result of appending φ to a proof of φ ∧ ψ is a proof of φ.
    (2) The result of appending ψ to a proof of φ ∧ ψ is a proof of ψ.

    .. ..
    . .
    φ∧ψ φ∧ψ
    ∧Elim1 ∧Elim2
    φ ψ
    Example
    (P ∧ Q) ∧ R ⊢ P
    Example
    Q ∧ P, R ⊢ P ∧ R
    rules for →

    →Elim
    The result of appending ψ to a proof of φ and a proof of φ → ψ
    is a proof of ψ.

    .. ..
    . .
    φ φ→ψ
    →Elim
    ψ

    This rule is often called ‘Modus Ponens’.


    Example
    P → Q, P ⊢ Q
    Example
    P → Q, (P ∧ R) ∧ R ⊢ Q
    →Intro
    The result of appending φ → ψ to a proof of ψ and discharging
    all assumptions of φ in the proof of ψ is a proof of φ → ψ.
    [φ]
    ..
    .
    ψ
    →Intro
    φ→ψ
    Conditional proof in informal reasoning.
    (1) If it’s poison and Tyrion looks at it, then he needs to be imprisoned.
    (2) It’s poison
    So (C) if Tyrion looks at it, he needs to be imprisoned.
    Informal proof. Assume Tyrion looks at it.
    Then (by 2) it’s poison and he looks at it.
    Then (by 1 and MP) he needs to be imprisoned.
    So (by conditional proof) if Tyrion looks at it, he needs to be
    imprisoned.
    Example
    P, (P ∧ Q) → R ⊢ Q → R 25
    We can now define Γ ⊢ φ.
    Let Γ be a set of sentences and φ a sentence.

    Definition (Provable)
    The sentence φ is provable from Γ if and only if:
    ▶ there is a proof of φ with only sentences in Γ as
    non-discharged assumptions.

    Notation
    ▶ Γ ⊢ φ is short for φ is provable from Γ
    ▶ ⊢ φ is short for ∅ ⊢ φ
    ▶ ψ1 , . . . , ψn ⊢ φ is short for {ψ1 , . . . , ψn } ⊢ φ.
    assumption rule
    The occurrence of a sentence φ with no sentence above it is
    an assumption. An assumption of φ is a proof of φ.

    This may seem odd.


    RULES FOR ∨, ¬, ↔
    rules for ∨

    The introduction rules are straightforward.


    .. ..
    . .
    φ ψ
    ∨Intro1 ∨Intro2
    φ∨ψ φ∨ψ
    The elimination rule is a little more complex.

    [φ] [ψ]
    .. .. ..
    . . .
    φ∨ψ χ χ
    χ ∨Elim
    Proof by cases in informal reasoning
    (1) Either Tyrion flees before the trial by combat and does not die, or
    Bronn fights in the trial by combat and Tyrion does not die.
    So, (C) Tyrion does not die.
    Informal proof. Suppose (1)
    Case (i): Tyrion flees before the trial by combat and does not die. So:
    Tyrion does not die.
    Case (ii): Bronn fights in the trial by combat and Tyrion does not die.
    So: Tyrion does not die.
    Either way then, (C) follows: Tyrion does not die.
    Example
    (¬P ∧ Q) ∨ (R ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ¬P
    the rules for ¬

    Here are the rules for ¬.


    [φ] [φ] [¬φ] [¬φ]
    .. .. .. ..
    . . . .
    ψ ¬ψ ψ ¬ψ
    ¬Intro ¬Elim
    ¬φ φ

    The proof technique is known as reductio ad absurdum.


    Example
    ¬(P → Q) ⊢ ¬Q
    Example
    ⊢ P ∨ ¬P
    Rules for ↔

    These are reminiscent of the rules for →

    [φ] [ψ]
    .. ..
    . .
    ψ φ
    ↔Intro
    φ↔ψ

    .. .. .. ..
    . . . .
    φ↔ψ φ φ↔ψ ψ
    ↔Elim1 ↔Elim2
    ψ φ
    a simple example

    Example
    ⊢ (P ∧ P) ↔ P
    another simple example

    Example
    ⊢ (P ∨ P) ↔ P
    a remarkable property of propositional logic

    Theorem (Adequacy for propositional logic)


    Let Γ be a set of sentences of L1 , and φ be a sentence of L1 .
    Then
    Γ ⊢ φ if and only if Γ ⊨ φ

    The theorem says that proofs in natural deduction


    correspond to valid arguments.
    As a consequence:
    Theorem
    For φ a sentence of L1 , ⊢ φ iff ⊨ φ.

    You might also like