1. Propositional Calculus
|
|
- David Harris
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given: a set S = {S 1, S 2, } of statement letters or propositional variables. In the book, it is assumed that S is a countable infinite set (i.e., there are as many elements of S as natural numbers). Everything that follows holds even if S is finite or uncountable. Assume that {,,,, } is a 5-element set disjoint from S: S {,,,, } =. The elements of {,,,, } are called propositional connectives. They will also be used as symbols denoting particular operations on sets. Ordered pairs x, y and ordered triples (see p. xix) are defined thus (pp. 231): For any sets x and y let x, y = {{x}, {x, y}}, x, y, z = x, y, z = {{{{x}, {x, y}}}, {{{x}, {x, y}}, z}}. x y =, x, y, x y =, x, y, x y =, x, y, x y =, x, y, x =, x. Assume S contains no ordered pairs. Let Sent be the closure of S under the operations,,,, and. Then Sent,,,,, is an algebra called the sentence algebra, Sent itself is the called the set of sentences or formulas (in the book, statement forms ) built from S, and Sent is the language of propositional calculus. The essential properties of the sentence algebra are as follows: Theorem 1. For every set S that contains no ordered pairs there exists a set Sent with the following properties: (1) S Sent. (2) Sent is closed under the operations,,,, and defined above. (3) Let A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J Sent. Then (a) A B, C D, E F, G H, and J are not in S. (b) A B, C D, E F, G H, and J are all different from each other. (c) If A B = C D then A = C and B = D. (d) If A B = C D then A = C and B = D (e) If A B = C D then A = C and B = D. (f) If A B = C D then A = C and B = D. (g) If A = B then A = B. (4) Sent is the intersection of all sets that contain S and are closed under,,,, and : Sent = {X : S X and if A, B X, then A B, A B, A B, A B, A X}. Theorem 2 (principle of induction for Sent). If S X and X is closed under,,,, and, then Sent X. 1
2 2 Theorem 3 ( unique readability for Sent). If A Sent, then exactly one of the following statements holds: (1) A S, (2) A = B C for some B, C Sent, (3) A = B C for some B, C Sent, (4) A = B C for some B, C Sent, (5) A = B C for some B, C Sent, (6) A = B for some B Sent. The book constructs statements by a method that involves some notational difficulties: see footnotes, p. 1, and read Parentheses in 1.2., pp Semantics ( meanings ). 1.1, pp Let {T, F} be a set of two truth values, where T F. Define five operations on {T, F} as follows. T F T F + T F T F T T T F T T F T T T T T F T F F T T F F F F T F F F T F T Then {T, F},,, +,, is an algebra called the truth-value algebra. Definition 4. A valuation is a homomorphism from the sentence algebra Sent,,,,, into the truth-value algebra. Theorem 5. For every function f : S {T, F} there is a unique valuation v extending f. This means that for all A, B Sent, (1) v(a) = f(a) if A S, i.e., v extends f, (2) v(a B) = v(a) v(b), (3) v(a B) = v(a) v(b), (4) v(a B) = v(a) + v(b), (5) v(a B) = v(a) v(b), (6) v( A) = v(a). Proof. To show that there can be at most one such extension, suppose that v and v are extensions of f satisfying (1) (6). Let X = {A : A Sent and v (A) = v (A)}. We will show that S X and X is closed under,,,, and. Since X Sent, it then follows that X = Sent, hence v = v. To see that S X, assume A S. Then v (A) = f(a) and v (A) = f(a) by (1), hence v (A) = v (A). Thus A X. Assume A, B X. Then A B X because v (A B) = v (A) v (B) by (2) for v = v (A) v (B) since A, B X = v (A B) by (2) for v Similar calculations show that A B X, A B X, A B X, and A X. Thus X is closed under,,,, and. To show the existence of v we use Zorn s Lemma [Prop. 4.42(e), p. 279]. Say that a function w : dom(w) {T, F} is f-acceptable if
3 (a) S dom(w) Sent, (b) w(a) = f(a) for every A S, i.e., w extends f, (c) if A B dom(w) then A, B dom(w) and w(a B) = w(a) w(b), (d) if A B dom(w) then A, B dom(w) and w(a B) = w(a) w(b), (e) if A B dom(w) then A, B dom(w) and w(a B) = w(a) + w(b), (f) if A B dom(w) then A, B dom(w) and w(a B) = w(a) w(b), (g) if A dom(w) then A dom(w) and w( A) = w(a). Let be the set of f-acceptable functions. is partially ordered by the inclusion relation. A chain is a subset C such that if v, v C then either v v or v v. We show below that the union of a chain of f-acceptable functions is f-acceptable. The union of a chain is trivially an upper bound with respect to inclusion, so this will show that every chain in has an upper bound in. Claim 1. f is f-acceptable, i.e. f. Proof. The domain of f is S, so (a) holds. Clearly (b) holds. The hypotheses of (c) (g) are always false by Theorem 1(3)(a), so (c) (g) hold as well. Claim 2. The union of every chain C is in. Proof. Let w = C. We will show w is f-acceptable. First we show w is a function. Let A, t 0, A, t 1 w. We must show t 0 = t 1. From A, t 0 w = C we get A, t 0 v for some v C, and, similarly, A, t 1 v for some v C. Since C is a chain, either v v or v v. In the first case, v v, we have A, t 0, A, t 1 v, hence t 0 = t 1 since v is a function. In the second case, v v, we have A, t 0, A, t 1 v, hence t 0 = t 1 since v is a function. Since w is the union of functions with values in {T, F}, its values must also be in {T, F}. Thus we know w : dom(w) {T, F}. Since w is the union of functions defined on all of S, w is also defined on all of S. Since w is the union of functions whose domains are sets of formulas, the domain of w is also a set of formulas. Thus (a) holds for w. Next we prove (c) for w. Note that dom(w) = u C dom(u). Assume A B dom(w). Then A B dom(u) for some u C. But u is f-acceptable, so (c) holds for u, hence A, B dom(u) and u(a B) = u(a) u(b). Since w is a function extending u, we have u(a B) = w(a B), u(a) = w(a), and u(b) = w(b). Combining these equations yields w(a B) = w(a) w(b). The proofs of (d) (g) for w are similar. Claim 3. has a maximal element. Call it v. Proof. By Claim 2 and Zorn s Lemma [Prop. 4.42(e), p. 279]. Claim 4. The domain of v is Sent. Proof. By Claim 3, v. Hence dom(v) Sent by (a). We prove the opposite inclusion by induction. So we wish to prove S dom(v) and dom(v) is closed under the operations on formulas. We have S dom(v) by (a), since v. Claim 5. dom(v) is closed under. Proof. Assume A, B dom(v). We wish to show A B dom(v). Assume, to the contrary, that A B / dom(v). Let w = v { A B, v(a) v(b) }. We will prove that w. But this will contradict the maximality of v, since v w but v w, thus proving that the assumption was wrong, hence A B dom(v). First note that w is a function because the single additional pair that is in w but not in v begins with a formula that is not in the domain of v. 3
4 4 From v and (a) we get S dom(v) Sent, and we have A B Sent. Consequently S dom(v) {A B} = dom(w) Sent, so (a) holds for w. If C S, then v(c) = f(c) by (b) for v. But w is a function extending v, so w(c) = f(c) as well. Thus (b) holds for w. Now we prove (c) for w. Assume C D dom(w). Then either C D dom(v) or else C D = A B. First case: C D dom(v). By (c) for v we get C, D dom(v) and v(c D) = v(c) v(d). Since w extends v, we have C, D, C D dom(w), v(c D) = w(c D), v(c) = w(c), and v(d) = w(d). Therefore w(c D) = w(c) w(d), as desired. So (c) holds in the first case. Second case: C D = A B. By property (3)(iii) of Sent, we get C = A and D = B. But we assumed A, B dom(v), so C, D dom(v) dom(w) and w(c D) = w(a B) = v(a) v(b). So (c) holds in the second case. Now we prove (d) for w. Assume C D dom(w). Then, by the definition of w, either C D dom(v) or else C D = A B. But the second possibility cannot occur, according to property (3)(ii) of Sent. Hence C D dom(v). By (d) for v we get C, D dom(v) w and v(c D) = v(c) v(d), hence, since w extends v, w(c D) = w(c) w(d). Similarly, (e), (f), and (g) hold for w. This completes the proof of Claim 5 that dom(v) is closed under. Similar proofs show that dom(v) is also closed under,, and. Since dom(v) contains S and is closed under,,, and, we conclude that Sent dom(v). But dom(v) Sent by (a) since v. Therefore dom(v) = Sent. P(S) is the set of all subsets of S, and is called the powerset of S. The next theorem proves the existence of a function st such that st(a) is the set of statement letters occurring in A. Theorem 6. There exists a unique map st : Sent P(S) such that (1) st(a) = {A} if A S, (2) st(a B) = st(a B) = st(a B) = st(a B) = st(a) st(b), (3) st( A) = st(a). Proof. There was nothing in the proof of Theorem 5 that depended on the exact nature of the set {T, F}, so {T, F} can be replaced with P(S), and other parts of the proof can be appropriately changed. The next two theorems have similar inductive proofs. Theorem 7. For every A Sent, st(a) is finite, i.e., st(a) < ω. Theorem 8. If B Sent, and v, w are valuations with w(a) = v(a) for every A st(b), then w(b) = v(b). By the next theorem, there is a function sf such that sf(a) is the set of subformulas of A. Theorem 9. There exists a unique map sf : Sent P(S) such that (1) sf(a) = {A} if A S, (2) sf(a B) = sf(a) sf(b) {A B}, (3) sf(a B) = sf(a) sf(b) {A B}, (4) sf(a B) = sf(a) sf(b) {A B}, (5) sf(a B) = sf(a) sf(b) {A B},
5 5 (6) sf( A) = sf(a) { A}. Definition 10. Let A, B Sent and Γ Sent. 4. Tautologies (1) A is a tautology if v(a) = T for every valuation v. (2) A is a contradiction if v(a) = F for every valuation v. (3) A is logically equivalent to B, in symbols, A B, if v(a) = v(b) for every valuation v. (4) Γ logically implies A, and A is a logical consequence of Γ, in symbols, Γ = A, if v(a) = T for every valuation v with the property that v(g) = T for every G Γ. Write B = A instead of {B} = A, B, C = A instead of {B, C} = A, = A instead of = A. Note that = A iff A is a tautology. Theorem 11. There is an algorithm for determining whether a sentence A is a tautology. Proof. The truth-table method is such an algorithm. The previous theorems show that the only values of a valuation v that contribute to the value of v(a) are the values of v on the variables in st(a), and st(a) is finite, so there are only 2 st(a) cases to check to see whether v(a) = T for all valuations v. Theorem 12 (Prop. 1.1). Let A, B Sent. (1) A = B iff A B is a tautology. (2) A B iff A B is a tautology. Proof. Note first that v(a B) = T iff v(a) = v(b). The result follows from this observation and the relevant definitions. For a proof of the second part is suffices to observe that the following statements are equivalent: A B, for all v, v(a) = v(b), for all v, v(a) v(b) = T, for all v, v(a B) = T. Prop. 1.2: modus ponens is sound. Prop. 1.3: Substitution into a tautology produces a tautology. Prop. 1.4: Substitution into equivalent statements yields equivalent statements. 5. Adequate Sets of Connectives Prop. 1.5:,, generate all truth functions. Prop. 1.6: Adequate sets are {, }, {, }, and {, }. 6. Axioms and proofs, 1.4. Now we assume that Sent is built up from the set S using only the operations and. We no longer have the fundamental operations,, and, which are introduced instead by the following definitions. A B := A B,
6 6 Definition 13. A B := (A B), A B := ((A B) (B A)). (A1) := {A (B A) : A, B Sent}, (A2) := {(A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) : A, B, C Sent}, (A3) := {( B A) (( B A) B) : A, B Sent}, (A1)(A2) := (A1) (A2), (A1)(A2)(A3) := (A1) (A2) (A3). Theorem 14. If A (A1)(A2)(A3) then A is a tautology. Definition 15. Let Γ, Sent, and A Sent. Then Γ A if there is a finite sequence B 1,..., B n of sentences of length n ω such that (1) B n = A, (2) for every i {1,..., n}, either (a) B i or (b) B i Γ or (c) there are j, k {1,..., i 1} such that B k = B j B i. The sequence B 1,..., B n is called a proof of A from hypotheses Γ using axioms. A less formal definition of proof is that it a sequence of formulas in which every formula is either a hypothesis or an axiom or is obtained from two previous formulas by modus ponens (MP), where the axioms and rule MP are (A1) A (B A) (A2) (A (B A)) ((A B) (A C)) (A3) ( B A) (( B A) B) A, A B MP B A set of formulas Ω Sent is MP-closed iff C Ω whenever B, C Sent and B, B C Ω. The principle of induction on provability is Theorem 16. Γ A iff A {Ω : Γ Ω and Ω is MP-closed}. Definition 17. Let Γ Sent and A Sent. (1) Γ A iff Γ (A1)(A2)(A3) A, (2) Γ d A iff Γ (A1)(A2) A. Lemma 18. (See Lemma 1.8) d A A for every A Sent. Proof. Let B 1 = A ((A A) A), B 2 = (A ((A A) A)) ((A (A A)) (A A)), B 3 = (A (A A)) (A A), B 4 = A (A A), B 5 = A A. Then B 1, B 2, B 3, B 4, B 5 is a proof of A A from using (A1)(A2), since B i i = 1,..., 5, B 1 (A1), B 2 (A2), B 2 = B 1 B 3, B 4 (A1), and B 3 = B 4 B 5. Sent for
7 7 7. Soundness, 1.4. Theorem 19. If Γ A and B is a tautology for every B, then Γ = A. Proof. Assume Γ A. Then there is a proof B 1,..., B n of A from Γ using. Claim. Γ = B i whenever 1 i n. The claim is proved by induction on i. Suppose i = 1. Then there are no previous formulas in the sequence, so B 1 must be in Γ. If B 1 Γ then we get Γ = B 1 immediately from the definition of =. If B 1 then B 1 is a tautology by hypothesis, hence = B 1, hence Γ = B 1. Thus the Claim holds when i = 1. Assume Γ = B 1,..., Γ = B i 1. We wish to show that Γ = B i. If B i Γ, then either B i, B i is a tautology by hypothesis so Γ = B i, or else B i Γ and Γ = B i. Suppose B i is obtained from previous formulas by modus ponens. Then there are j, k < i such that B k = (B j B i ). By the inductive hypothesis, Γ = B j and Γ = B j B i. Consider an arbitrary valuation v such that v(c) = T for every C Γ. Then v(b j ) = T since Γ = B j, and v(b j B i ) = v(b j ) v(b i ) = T since Γ = B j B i. But the equations v(b j ) = T and v(b j ) v(b i ) = T imply v(b i ) = T by the definition of. This shows that Γ = B i. Corollary 20. If Γ A and B is a tautology for every B Γ, then A is also a tautology. Corollary 21 (Prop. 1.12, Weak Soundness). If A then A is a tautology. 8. Properties of provability, 1.4. The next six theorems are the fundamental properties of provability (see p. 26). Theorem 22 (weakening). If Γ Γ and Γ A then Γ A. Theorem 23 (weakening). If and Γ A then Γ A. Theorem 24 (reiteration). If A Γ, then Γ A. Theorem 25 (MP-lemma). If Γ A and Γ A B then Γ B. Theorem 26 (compactness). If Γ A then Γ A for some finite subsets Γ Γ and. Theorem 27 (transitivity). If Γ B for every B Γ and Γ A, then Γ A. 9. The Deduction Theorem, 1.4. Theorem 28 (Deduction Theorem; see Prop. 1.9). Let A, B Sent and Γ Sent. Then Γ, A d B iff Γ d A B. Proof. Assume Γ d A B. Then Γ, A d A B by weakening (Th 22), and Γ, A d A by reiteration (Th 24). Hence Γ, A d B by the MP-lemma (Th 25). For the converse, assume Γ, A d B. Then there is a proof C 1,..., C n of B from Γ {A} using (A1)(A2). Claim. Γ d A C i whenever 1 i n. Proof. The claim is proved by induction on i. Case: i = 1. We need to show Γ d A C 1. Subcase: C 1 Γ (A1)(A2). Then C 1, C 1 (A C 1 ), A C 1 is a proof of A C 1 from Γ using (A1), so Γ d A C 1.
8 8 Subcase: C 1 arises via MP. This case can t occur because there are no previous formulas. Subcase: C 1 = A. Then Γ d A C 1 by Lemma 18. Case: 1 < i n. Assume Γ d A C j for j {1,..., i 1}. We want to show Γ d A C i. Subcase: C i Γ (A1)(A2). Then C i, C i (A C i ), A C i is a proof of A C i from Γ using (A1)(A2), so Γ d A C i. Subcase: C i = A. Then d A C i by Lemma 18. Subcase: there are j, k {1,..., i 1} such that C k = C j C i. By assumption we have Γ d A C j and Γ d A C k. The latter fact, restated, says that Γ d A (C j C i ). Hence there is a proof B 1,..., B r of A C j from Γ using (A1)(A2), and there is a proof C 1,..., C s of A (C j C i )) from Γ using (A1)(A2). Then the following sequence of formulas is a proof of A C i from Γ using (A1)(A2). B 1. B r 1 A C j D 1. D s 1 proof of A C j from Γ A (C j C i )) proof of A (C j C i )) from Γ (A (C j C i )) ((A C j ) (A C i )) (A2) (A C j ) (A C i ) MP A C i The next theorem follows from the properties of provability and the Deduction Theorem. Theorem 29 (see Cor. 1.10). Let A, B, C Sent. Then (1) d A (B A), (2) d A ((A B) B), (3) d (A (B C)) (B (A C)), (4) d (A B) ((A (B C)) (A C)), (5) d A ((A B) ((A (B C)) C)), (6) d (A B) ((B C) (A C)), (7) A B, B C d A C, (8) B, A (B C) d A C. 10. Completeness Theorem for Propositional Calculus of and Definition 30. For every valuation v and every A Sent, let { A v A if v(a) = T = A if v(a) = F Lemma 31. Assume v is a valuation and A is a sentence built up from sentence letters S 1,..., S n. Let (v) = {S v 1,..., S v n}. Then (v) A v, i.e., ( ) If v(a) = T then (v) A and if v(a) = F then (v) A. MP
9 9 Proof. The proof is by induction on the complexity of A. The boxed formulas are lemmas that need to be proved. (1) Suppose A is a statement letter, say A = S i. If v(a) = T then v(s i ) = T, hence A = S i = S v i (v), hence (v) A. If v(a) = F then v(s i ) = F, hence A = S i = S v i (v), hence (v) A. (2) Suppose A = B, and ( ) holds for B. If v(a) = T = v( B) then v(b) = F, so by ( ), (v) B, hence (v) A. If v(a) = F = v( B) then v(b) = T, so by ( ), (v) B, hence (v) B since B B, hence (v) A. (3) Suppose A = (B C), and ( ) holds for B and C. If v(a) = T = v(b C) then either v(c) = T, so by ( ), (v) C, hence (v) A since C B C, or else v(b) = F, so by ( ), (v) B, hence (v) A since B B C. If v(a) = F = v(b C) then v(b) = T and v(c) = F, so by ( ), (v) B and (v) C, hence (v) A since B, C (B C). Theorem 32 (Weak Completeness). If = A then A. Proof. Assume = A. Note that A v = A for every v, since we are assuming that A is a tautology. Claim. If i {1,..., n + 1}, then S v i, S v i+1,..., S v n A for every valuation v. Proof. By induction. Case i = 1. We have S v 1,..., S v n A for every v by Lemma 31. Case 1 < i n + 1. Assume the Claim for i 1. For a given valuation v, we have S v i 1, S v i,..., S v n A by the Claim. Let w be the same valuation as v except that v(s i 1 ) w(s i 1 ). By the inductive hypothesis S v i 1, S v i,..., S v n A S w i 1, S w i,..., S w n A By the Deduction Theorem, plus S v i = S w i,..., S v n = S w n, (1) (2) S v i,... S v n S v i 1 A S v i,... S v n S w i 1 A Note that {S v i 1, S w i 1} = {S i 1, S i 1 }. But (3) S i 1 A, S i 1 A A by B C, B C C, so Si v,..., Sn v A by (1), (2), (3), and transitivity of. Now apply the Claim with i = n + 1 to get A.
10 10 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) 11. The boxed lemmas Items (4) (33) below are theorems that hold for all A, B Sent. ( B A) (( B A) B) (A3) B A, B A B (4), DT A B A (A1), DT A B A (6) with (B = B) ( ) A = A A B A (6) with B = B A, A B (5), (7), (8) B A, A B (5), (8) B A, A B (5), (7) A A B (9), DT B A A B (10), DT B A A B (11), DT B B, B B (10) with (A = B) B B Lemma 18 B B (15), (16) B B B B, B B B B (17), DT B B (19), (20) B B (18) with (B = B) ( ) A = B (8) with B = B (21), DT A, A B B (17) with (B = A), (21) A B A B A B B A (23), DT (14) with A B B A (24), (25) A B B A (10) with A B, A B B (26), (27), (5) ( ) A = B B = A ( ) A = B B = A A, A B B A, A B, B A (A B) B (29), DT (A B) B B (A B) (26) with (A = A B) A B (A B) (30), (31) A, B (A B) (32), DT The boxed lemmas have now been proved, since C B C is (6), B B C is (12), B B is (21), B, C (B C)) is (33), and B C, B C C is (28).
1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationNotes for Math 601, Fall based on Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Elliott Mendelson Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall
Notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Elliott Mendelson Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall All first-order languages contain the variables: v 0, v 1, v 2,... the
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationClassical Propositional Logic
The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction January 16, 2013 The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction Logic Logic is the science of inference. Given a body of information,
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More information1 Completeness Theorem for First Order Logic
1 Completeness Theorem for First Order Logic There are many proofs of the Completeness Theorem for First Order Logic. We follow here a version of Henkin s proof, as presented in the Handbook of Mathematical
More informationGödel s Completeness Theorem
A.Miller M571 Spring 2002 Gödel s Completeness Theorem We only consider countable languages L for first order logic with equality which have only predicate symbols and constant symbols. We regard the symbols
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationBasic Algebraic Logic
ELTE 2013. September Today Past 1 Universal Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Transforming Algebras... Past 1 Homomorphism 2 Subalgebras 3 Direct products 3 Varieties 1 Algebraic Model Theory 1 Term Algebras 2 Meanings
More informationCMPSCI 601: Tarski s Truth Definition Lecture 15. where
@ CMPSCI 601: Tarski s Truth Definition Lecture 15! "$#&%(') *+,-!".#/%0'!12 43 5 6 7 8:9 4; 9 9 < = 9 = or 5 6?>A@B!9 2 D for all C @B 9 CFE where ) CGE @B-HI LJKK MKK )HG if H ; C if H @ 1 > > > Fitch
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationLogic via Algebra. Sam Chong Tay. A Senior Exercise in Mathematics Kenyon College November 29, 2012
Logic via Algebra Sam Chong Tay A Senior Exercise in Mathematics Kenyon College November 29, 2012 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to gain insight to mathematical logic through an algebraic perspective.
More informationSequences of height 1 primes in Z[X]
Sequences of height 1 primes in Z[X] Stephen McAdam Department of Mathematics University of Texas Austin TX 78712 mcadam@math.utexas.edu Abstract: For each partition J K of {1, 2,, n} (n 2) with J 2, let
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More informationFormal Epistemology: Lecture Notes. Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University
Formal Epistemology: Lecture Notes Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University hcosta@andrew.cmu.edu Logical preliminaries Let L 0 be a language containing a complete set of Boolean connectives, including
More informationCHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC
CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC 1. Introduction First order logic is a much richer system than sentential logic. Its interpretations include the usual structures of mathematics, and its sentences enable us
More informationOverview. I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof.
Overview I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof. Propositional formulas Grammar: ::= p j (:) j ( ^ )
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationAN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2. Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2
45 Kragujevac J. Math. 33 (2010) 45 62. AN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2 Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2 1 University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Science,
More information1 Completeness Theorem for Classical Predicate
1 Completeness Theorem for Classical Predicate Logic The relationship between the first order models defined in terms of structures M = [M, I] and valuations s : V AR M and propositional models defined
More informationStat 451: Solutions to Assignment #1
Stat 451: Solutions to Assignment #1 2.1) By definition, 2 Ω is the set of all subsets of Ω. Therefore, to show that 2 Ω is a σ-algebra we must show that the conditions of the definition σ-algebra are
More informationFiltrations and Basic Proof Theory Notes for Lecture 5
Filtrations and Basic Proof Theory Notes for Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit March 13, 2012 1 Filtration Let M = W, R, V be a Kripke model. Suppose that Σ is a set of formulas closed under subformulas. We write
More informationGÖDEL S COMPLETENESS AND INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS. Contents 1. Introduction Gödel s Completeness Theorem
GÖDEL S COMPLETENESS AND INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS BEN CHAIKEN Abstract. This paper will discuss the completeness and incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel. These theorems have a profound impact on the philosophical
More informationPropositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula
More informationMathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic
Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin Mathematical Logic 1 First-Order Languages. Symbols. All first-order languages we consider will have the following symbols: (i) variables v 1, v 2, v 3,... ; (ii)
More information4. Derived Leibniz rules
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 29/1 (2000), pp. 75 87 George Tourlakis A BASIC FORMAL EQUATIONAL PREDICATE LOGIC PART II Abstract We continue our exploration of the Basic Formal Equational Predicate
More informationPropositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents
Propositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents Kyle Brooks April 18, 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Formal Logic Systems 1 2.1 Consequence Relations......................... 2 3 Propositional Logic
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More information3 Propositional Logic
3 Propositional Logic 3.1 Syntax 3.2 Semantics 3.3 Equivalence and Normal Forms 3.4 Proof Procedures 3.5 Properties Propositional Logic (25th October 2007) 1 3.1 Syntax Definition 3.0 An alphabet Σ consists
More informationCOMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR 1 Overview Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies Today Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof
More informationCOMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR 1 Overview Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies Today Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof
More informationLogic, Sets, and Proofs
Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Operators. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that can be assigned a value either true or false.
More informationPropositional Dynamic Logic
Propositional Dynamic Logic Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Syntax and Semantics 2 2.1 Syntax................................. 2 2.2 Semantics............................... 2 3 Hilbert-style axiom system
More informationLanguage of Propositional Logic
Logic A logic has: 1. An alphabet that contains all the symbols of the language of the logic. 2. A syntax giving the rules that define the well formed expressions of the language of the logic (often called
More informationAxioms for Set Theory
Axioms for Set Theory The following is a subset of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory. In this setting, all objects are sets which are denoted by letters, e.g. x, y, X, Y. Equality is logical identity:
More information5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting
5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting Let N denote the positive integers, N 0 := N {0} be the non-negative integers and Z = N 0 ( N) the positive and negative integers including 0, Q the rational numbers,
More information1. Model existence theorem.
We fix a first order logic F such that 1. Model existence theorem. C. We let S be the set of statements of F and we suppose Γ S. We let VFT be the set of variable free terms. For each s VFT we let [s]
More informationCHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS
CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS 1 Language There are several propositional languages that are routinely called classical propositional logic languages. It is due to the functional dependency
More informationThe following techniques for methods of proofs are discussed in our text: - Vacuous proof - Trivial proof
Ch. 1.6 Introduction to Proofs The following techniques for methods of proofs are discussed in our text - Vacuous proof - Trivial proof - Direct proof - Indirect proof (our book calls this by contraposition)
More informationPropositional logic. First order logic. Alexander Clark. Autumn 2014
Propositional logic First order logic Alexander Clark Autumn 2014 Formal Logic Logical arguments are valid because of their form. Formal languages are devised to express exactly that relevant form and
More informationPropositional Calculus - Soundness & Completeness of H
Propositional Calculus - Soundness & Completeness of H Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula Á is valid To prove a given formula Á `
More informationSyntactic Characterisations in Model Theory
Department of Mathematics Bachelor Thesis (7.5 ECTS) Syntactic Characterisations in Model Theory Author: Dionijs van Tuijl Supervisor: Dr. Jaap van Oosten June 15, 2016 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Preliminaries
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationNatural Deduction. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson
Natural Deduction Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson Outline 1. An example 1. Validity by truth table 2. Validity by proof 2. What s a proof 1. Proof checker 3. Rules of
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More informationThe Process of Mathematical Proof
1 The Process of Mathematical Proof Introduction. Mathematical proofs use the rules of logical deduction that grew out of the work of Aristotle around 350 BC. In previous courses, there was probably an
More informationFirst-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms
First-Order Logic 1 Syntax Domain of Discourse The domain of discourse for first order logic is FO structures or models. A FO structure contains Relations Functions Constants (functions of arity 0) FO
More informationOverview. Knowledge-Based Agents. Introduction. COMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies oday Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof theory Natural
More informationThe Countable Henkin Principle
The Countable Henkin Principle Robert Goldblatt Abstract. This is a revised and extended version of an article which encapsulates a key aspect of the Henkin method in a general result about the existence
More informationKRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH 1. INTRODUCTION
KRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH RICHARD G HECK, JR 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this note is to give a simple, easily accessible proof of the existence of the minimal fixed point, and of various maximal fixed
More informationModal Logic XX. Yanjing Wang
Modal Logic XX Yanjing Wang Department of Philosophy, Peking University May 6th, 2016 Advanced Modal Logic (2016 Spring) 1 Completeness A traditional view of Logic A logic Λ is a collection of formulas
More informationModal and temporal logic
Modal and temporal logic N. Bezhanishvili I. Hodkinson C. Kupke Imperial College London 1 / 83 Overview Part II 1 Soundness and completeness. Canonical models. 3 lectures. 2 Finite model property. Filtrations.
More informationArtificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic [1] Boolean algebras by examples U X U U = {a} U = {a, b} U = {a, b, c} {a} {b} {a, b} {a, c} {b, c}... {a} {b} {c} {a, b} {a} The arrows represents proper inclusion
More informationThe Logic of Proofs, Semantically
The Logic of Proofs, Semantically Melvin Fitting Dept. Mathematics and Computer Science Lehman College (CUNY), 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West Bronx, NY 10468-1589 e-mail: fitting@lehman.cuny.edu web page:
More information3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.
1 Chapter 1 Propositional Logic Mathematical logic studies correct thinking, correct deductions of statements from other statements. Let us make it more precise. A fundamental property of a statement is
More informationFormal (natural) deduction in propositional logic
Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic Lila Kari University of Waterloo Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 67 I know what you re thinking about,
More informationCONTENTS. Appendix C: Gothic Alphabet 109
Contents 1 Sentential Logic 1 1.1 Introduction............................ 1 1.2 Sentences of Sentential Logic................... 2 1.3 Truth Assignments........................ 7 1.4 Logical Consequence.......................
More informationLecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352
Lecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352 Ivan Avramidi New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM 87801 June 3, 2004 Author: Ivan Avramidi; File: absmath.tex; Date: June 11,
More informationHandout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH Spring David C. Royster UNC Charlotte
Handout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH 3181 001 Spring 1999 David C. Royster UNC Charlotte January 18, 1999 Chapter 1 Logic and the Axiomatic Method 1.1 Introduction Mathematicians use a
More informationPart II. Logic and Set Theory. Year
Part II Year 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2018 60 Paper 4, Section II 16G State and prove the ǫ-recursion Theorem. [You may assume the Principle of ǫ- Induction.]
More informationUSING ULTRAPOWERS TO CHARACTERIZE ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE
USING ULTRAPOWERS TO CHARACTERIZE ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE MIKAYLA KELLEY Abstract. This paper will establish that ultrapowers can be used to determine whether or not two models have the same theory. More
More informationVALUATIONS FOR DIRECT PROPOSITIONAL
VALUATIONS FOR DIRECT PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC In (1969) a subsystem of classical propositional logic - called direct logic since all indirect inferences are excluded from it - was formulated as a generalized
More informationA Weak Post s Theorem and the Deduction Theorem Retold
Chapter I A Weak Post s Theorem and the Deduction Theorem Retold This note retells (1) A weak form of Post s theorem: If Γ is finite and Γ = taut A, then Γ A and derives as a corollary the Deduction Theorem:
More informationLearning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation
Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation Alice Gao April 27, 2018 Contents 1 Propositional Logic 2 2 Predicate Logic 4 3 Program Verification 6 4 Undecidability 7 1 1 Propositional Logic Introduction
More informationA SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2. Abstract
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 33/1 (2004), pp. 11 21 Katsumi Sasaki 1 Shigeo Ohama A SEQUENT SYSTEM OF THE LOGIC R FOR ROSSER SENTENCES 2 Abstract To discuss Rosser sentences, Guaspari and Solovay
More informationLecture 9. Model theory. Consistency, independence, completeness, categoricity of axiom systems. Expanded with algebraic view.
V. Borschev and B. Partee, October 17-19, 2006 p. 1 Lecture 9. Model theory. Consistency, independence, completeness, categoricity of axiom systems. Expanded with algebraic view. CONTENTS 0. Syntax and
More informationHandbook of Logic and Proof Techniques for Computer Science
Steven G. Krantz Handbook of Logic and Proof Techniques for Computer Science With 16 Figures BIRKHAUSER SPRINGER BOSTON * NEW YORK Preface xvii 1 Notation and First-Order Logic 1 1.1 The Use of Connectives
More informationPacket #1: Logic & Proofs. Applied Discrete Mathematics
Packet #1: Logic & Proofs Applied Discrete Mathematics Table of Contents Course Objectives Page 2 Propositional Calculus Information Pages 3-13 Course Objectives At the conclusion of this course, you should
More informationPropositional Language - Semantics
Propositional Language - Semantics Lila Kari University of Waterloo Propositional Language - Semantics CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 41 Syntax and semantics Syntax Semantics analyzes Form analyzes Meaning
More informationUNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA. School of Mathematics UG End of Year Examination MATHEMATICAL LOGIC WITH ADVANCED TOPICS MTH-4D23
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA School of Mathematics UG End of Year Examination 2003-2004 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC WITH ADVANCED TOPICS Time allowed: 3 hours Attempt Question ONE and FOUR other questions. Candidates
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic 1
Philosophy 135 Spring 2012 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii) connectives,
More information185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic www.volny.cz/behounek/logic/teaching/mathlog13 Libor Běhounek, behounek@cs.cas.cz Lecture #1, October 15, 2013 Organizational matters Study materials will be posted
More informationAI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic
AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic Propositional logic Logical connectives Rules for wffs Truth tables for the connectives Using Truth Tables to evaluate
More informationLecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables
Discrete Mathematics (II) Spring 2017 Lecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables Lecturer: Yi Li 1 Overview In last lecture, we give a brief introduction to mathematical logic and then redefine
More informationMeta-logic derivation rules
Meta-logic derivation rules Hans Halvorson February 19, 2013 Recall that the goal of this course is to learn how to prove things about (as opposed to by means of ) classical first-order logic. So, we will
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional logic
Artificial Intelligence Propositional logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Syntax of propositional logic defines allowable sentences Atomic sentences consists of a single proposition symbol Each symbol stands
More informationPropositional Logic: Syntax
4 Propositional Logic: Syntax Reading: Metalogic Part II, 22-26 Contents 4.1 The System PS: Syntax....................... 49 4.1.1 Axioms and Rules of Inference................ 49 4.1.2 Definitions.................................
More informationKreisel s Conjecture with minimality principle
Kreisel s Conjecture with minimality principle Pavel Hrubeš November 9, 2008 Abstract We prove that Kreisel s Conjecture is true, if Peano arithmetic is axiomatised using minimality principle and axioms
More informationA NEW FOUNDATION OF A COMPLETE BOOLEAN EQUATIONAL LOGIC
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 38:1/2 (2009), pp. 13 28 George Tourlakis A NEW FOUNDATION OF A COMPLETE BOOLEAN EQUATIONAL LOGIC Abstract We redefine the equational-proofs formalism of [2], [3],
More informationTR : Tableaux for the Logic of Proofs
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2004 TR-2004001: Tableaux for the Logic of Proofs Bryan Renne Follow this and additional works
More information4 The semantics of full first-order logic
4 The semantics of full first-order logic In this section we make two additions to the languages L C of 3. The first is the addition of a symbol for identity. The second is the addition of symbols that
More informationProof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics
Proof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics Ryo Kashima Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Tokyo Institute of Technology Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan. e-mail: kashima@is.titech.ac.jp
More informationRasiowa-Sikorski proof system for the non-fregean sentential logic SCI
Rasiowa-Sikorski proof system for the non-fregean sentential logic SCI Joanna Golińska-Pilarek National Institute of Telecommunications, Warsaw, J.Golinska-Pilarek@itl.waw.pl We will present complete and
More informationChapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics
Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics Language : L {,,, }. Classical Semantics assumptions: TWO VALUES: there are only two logical values: truth (T) and false (F), and EXTENSIONALITY: the logical
More informationGlossary of Logical Terms
Math 304 Spring 2007 Glossary of Logical Terms The following glossary briefly describes some of the major technical logical terms used in this course. The glossary should be read through at the beginning
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional Logic. Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer
Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer 1 Where are we? # Title 1 Introduction 2 Propositional Logic 3 Predicate Logic 4 Reasoning 5 Search Methods
More informationAdvanced Topics in LP and FP
Lecture 1: Prolog and Summary of this lecture 1 Introduction to Prolog 2 3 Truth value evaluation 4 Prolog Logic programming language Introduction to Prolog Introduced in the 1970s Program = collection
More informationMadhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute
AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Madhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute E-mail: madhavan@cmiacin Abstract ese are lecture notes for an introductory course on logic aimed at graduate students in Computer
More informationVersion January Please send comments and corrections to
Mathematical Logic for Computer Science Second revised edition, Springer-Verlag London, 2001 Answers to Exercises Mordechai Ben-Ari Department of Science Teaching Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovot
More informationSemantics of intuitionistic propositional logic
Semantics of intuitionistic propositional logic Erik Palmgren Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University Lecture Notes for Applied Logic, Fall 2009 1 Introduction Intuitionistic logic is a weakening
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - VII
Propositional and Predicate Logic - VII Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2015/2016 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - VII WS 2015/2016 1 / 11 Theory Validity in a theory A theory
More informationDeductive Systems. Lecture - 3
Deductive Systems Lecture - 3 Axiomatic System Axiomatic System (AS) for PL AS is based on the set of only three axioms and one rule of deduction. It is minimal in structure but as powerful as the truth
More informationThe logic of subset spaces, topologic and the local difference modality K
The logic of subset spaces, topologic and the local difference modality K Isabel Bevort July 18, 2013 Bachelor Thesis in Mathematics Supervisor: dr. Alexandru Baltag Korteweg-De Vries Instituut voor Wiskunde
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic V
An Introduction to Modal Logic V Axiomatic Extensions and Classes of Frames Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, November 7 th 2013
More informationComputation and Logic Definitions
Computation and Logic Definitions True and False Also called Boolean truth values, True and False represent the two values or states an atom can assume. We can use any two distinct objects to represent
More informationNotes on Modal Logic
Notes on Modal Logic Notes for PHIL370 Eric Pacuit October 22, 2012 These short notes are intended to introduce some of the basic concepts of Modal Logic. The primary goal is to provide students in Philosophy
More information