A REGULAR SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC IN WHICH A AND v ARE DUAL N.J. CUTLAND GIBBINS
|
|
- Sheryl McGee
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A REGULAR SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC IN WHICH A AND v ARE DUAL N.J. CUTLAND GIBBINS Introduction In the paper[ Nishimura (1980)1 the author develops sequent calculi GO and GOM f o r orthologic and orthomodular logic, the latter usually going under the ambiguous name o f quantum logic. I n Nishimura's calculi there is a fundamental lack o f duality in the treatment of the disjunction V and the conjunction A. Moreover, his calculi are not regular in the following sense: a sequent calculus SC is regular iff for finite sets (of formulae) I' and A 1 sc s e The non-regularity of GO and GOM follows from the non-classical disjunction property established by Nishimura for these calculi (see 2 below). In this paper we develop two regular sequent calculi GOt and GOtM which are related to Nishimura's calculi in the following way. The calculi Go t and GOtM are extensions of GO and GOM in that t 0(m) I' >A imp lie s t but not conversely. However, for normal sequents > A', in which A' has at most one member GO(M) i f f Hoot(m) r - A Besides their intrinsic interest as formulations o f orthologic and quantum logic, G o t and GOt M have some relevance to the philosophical discussion of the nature of logic. We say that a sequent calculus SC tolerates a rule R when the calculus SC + R, obtained by adding the rule R to SC, has the same class o f provable sequents as SC.
2 222 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS Neither Got nor GOIN tolerates the (full) cut rule of GO(M). There is reason to think that GOt(M) are logics if GO(M) are. Therefore toleration o f the (full) cut rule cannot be held to be a necessary condition for a sequent calculus to be a logic. We reserve discussion of this and other philosophical points to our final section. The organisation o f this paper is as follows. 1 contains some preliminaries. In 2 we discuss Nishimura's calculus GO. 3 develops Go t. We prove the regularity o f GOt and demonstrate its equivalence to GO for normal sequents. Soundness and completeness for GOt with respect to a version o f the relational semantics for orthologic devised by [ Goldblatt (1974)1 are obtained in 4. In 5 we sketch GOiN, our orthomodular extension of GOt, together with its relational semantics. We conclude in 6 with some philosophical remarks prompted by GOt(M). I Preliminaries In this paper we are concerned only with propositional sequent calculi. A (propositional) sequent calculus SC has a denumerable set of propositional variables {Po, Pl...1, a set of logical connectives (which in our case will be A I fo r GO(M) and A, V I f o r GOt(M)), and brackets ), (. The set o f wffs is the smallest set containing the propositional variables that is closed under the connectives. We use Greek letters a,13, t o denote wffs, the capitals A t o denote sets (possibly empty, possibly infinite) o f wffs. In a sequent calculus the proved objects, namely sequents, are of the form 1 (i) 'whenever all the wffs in I' are true, at least one wff in A is true', or (ii) for finite I', A, 'whenever any conjunction of all the formulae in is true, any disjunction of all the formulae in A is true'. (i) and (ii) are equivalent for the classical propositional calculus. The use o f sets o f formulae, rather than sequences, trivialises certain structural rules which appear in Gentzen's original sequent calculi, and whenever we apply a trivial rule in a proof we shall cite 1df.1 I n the usual fashion we write T, a' for F U la 1 ' T, A' for U A etc. Sequents of the form { a and 1
3 Definitions A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC (a) A proof in a sequent calculus SC is a finite tree of sequents such that (1) the topmost sequents are axiom sequents ; (2) every sequent in the tree except the topmost sequents is the lower sequent of a rule of SC whose upper sequents are in the tree. (b) The sequent proved by a proof in SC is the unique lowest sequent in the tree. We write i- For a finite set of formulae A there are many (logically equivalent) ways to define the conjunction of the formulae in A. Let [AA] denote the set o f all the possible ways o f forming conjunctions o f all the formulae in A. We will write A A to mean any of the formulae in [ A A]. For a language with V (primitive or defined), we d e similarly. When A is empty we understand both [AA] and [VA] to mean the empty set. The following notions enable us to see more clearly the distinction between our calculi and those of Nishimura. Definitions (a) A sequent calculus SC is regular iff, for all finite I' and A H > A i f F - A F - ) VA sc s c (b) A sequent calculus SC is dual iff for all finite F and A -4 A i f A * > F* sc s c where, for a formula a, we obtain a* by replacing each occurrence of A by v, and vice versa ; and for a set I', we define r* = ly* : y E ll. Finally, note that all the sequent calculi considered in this paper possess the following feature.
4 224 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS Theorem 1.1 ( i ) I f t f"-> A' of - > A such that - > A' ; (ii) if a finite sequent 1E-3 A is provable in SC, each sequent occurring in any proof of I" A is finite. By induction on the construction of proofs in SC. [Cp. Nishimura (1980) Theorems 2.1 and The system GO (as developed in [Nishimura (1980)]) The formal language of GO lacks the logical connective V, which is introduced as an abbreviation, namely a V [3 is an abbreviation for A--3). Axioms of GO: a -> Rules of GO: f -> A ( e x t ) r i f (cut) a, f - ( A->) a A l l, 1 [ 3, f -)A (A->) a Ar3,1-'-)A 1 ( - ) A) r A, a Al3 1 - a - A ( - )
5 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC A -) A, a ( - ) - ) --a GO has the following non-classical features. (i) According to the normal form theorem [Nishimura (1980)1 Theorem 2.5 i f t -) A such that t proof such that every sequent occurring in it is normal. (ii) The normal form theorem has the disjunction theorem [Nishimura (1980)1 as a corollary, according to which i f t non-empty, then for some a EA, t GO may be easily seen to be non-regular in the following way. If GO were regular we would have t a V(3-> a, p as an axiom to GO results in an expansion to classical logic, as the next theorem shows. Theorem 2.1 GO + - a v 0-> a, 1 Note that we have F have Ha V a, g i v i n g a, v i a (cut). In the extended system we can derive the following rule a, I'-. A The derivation is as follows. But GO + (-+ - ) p a, -la (cut) I' A, Hia
6 226 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. G1BBINS The non-duality of GO may be easily seen as follows. Since t 0 a, 13-> a A, the duality of GO would imply that a* v r - 13* is GO-provable. But t a* v13*-> a*, 13* in general. In the next section we develop the system G o t, an alternative formulation of orthologic which is closely related to GO yet which is regular and in which A and V are treated dually. 3 The system GOt The formal language of GOt contains the full set of logical connectives A, V, and ---, Axioms of GOt : ) a Rules of Got : -> A (ext) A l, A2 a - A2 (cut-1) r i - ) a r2-> A 1 " (cut-2) -> A ( A - a A 13, I ( A - > ) a A 1 3, 1 F-)13 ( - ) A)t -> a A13 a--) A * a V13-4 A - >A, a ( - 4 V)1 A, a Vr3 1 A, a (-) v)1
7 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC ) a -na 1,, F -3. A - 4 A, --, We mark the rules specific to GOt with a 't'. In GOt the cut-rule is restricted. ( dual, as are the rules for A and V. The rule ( -, - ) t is a restriction of the corresponding rule in GO. But the rule (-> - ) of GO is a restriction of the corresponding Go t rule - ) t. Note that (i) GO + (-> --)t is equivalent to the classical propositional calculus; (ii) GO + ( V-Ot is equivalent to the classical propositional calculus. To see (i) note that we have t we 'have (-) -I), as a derived rule, as below. a, -na--> - > a ( - ) --)t a - > ( cu t ) 1E, a A (cut) To see (ii) it is sufficient to note that in GO + (v -))t we have H a V(3-> a, [3 In Theorems 3.1 and 3.10 we further consider the relation between GO and GOt and demonstrate their equivalence for normal sequents. Theorem 3.1 t By the normal form theorem for GO, t for some normal subsequent I' A ' o f f. - A. This normal subsequent ( 'Introduction to Quantum Logic'.
8 228 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS has a normal proof. But a normal proof in GO is also a (normal) proof in GOt since in a normal proof in GO (i) any axiom appearing in the GO proof is an axiom of GOt (ii) any application of (cut) in GO is an application of (cut-2) in GOt (iii) any application of (-1 ) in GO is an application of (--1--)t (iv) any application of ( ) A) in GO is an application of ( > A)t (v) the remaining GO rules are all Gat rules. Hence A ' is provable in GOt, and r' ) A may be proved in GOt by (ext). Before we prove the converse of Theorem 3.1 for normal sequents we prove that GOt is regular. We require the following lemmas. Lemma 3.2 Fo r f i t This is trivial if T has less than two members. For largerf, the 'only if' part of the result is obtained by repeated application of the derived rule (DR-1) a, (3, F.--) A (DR-I) a A 1 3, 1 which is easily seen to be a derived rule of GOt. For the ' if ' part, use repeated application o f the following rule (DR-2) which is seen below to be a derived rule of GOt. a Af3,f *A ( D R - 2 ) a,13,1" >A Derivation o f (DR-2) a--)a a, f3-->a Lemma 3.3 Fo r finite A, [3, 13 (ext) ( e x t ) a, p ( 3 A)t ct.13 )a A p a A(3, - ( c u t - 2 ) a, (3, > A tot F >A i f t o t r > V
9 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC If A has fewer than 2 members this is trivial. For larger A, proceed by repeated application of the derived rule (DR-3) of GOt to obtain the 'only if part of lemma 3.3. ( D R - 3 ) A, a V13 Derivation o f (DR-3) ( -) A, _ a, p v)t f-- A, a, a V 13 ( - > V)t f - > A, a v p, a v p ( d f. ) f - * A, a v p For the ' i f part proceed by repeated application o f (DR-4), the following derived rule of Got. F -) A, a v p (DR-4) -* A, a, p Derivation o f (DR ot-> ( e a x t ) - ( e > x f t ) p (v w F--+A,a Vt3 a V (3 - (cut-1) Theorem 3.4 (The regularity of Gat) For finite F, A F-Got F -) A i f f i - - Directly from lemmas 3.2 and 3.3. Theorem 3.5 (The duality of Gat) Hoot T
10 230 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS Since F** = F and A** = A it is sufficient to prove that i Let us call A* > r* the dual o ff-4 A. The dual of an instance of a rule is obtained by taking the dual of each of the sequents occurring in that rule. Now observe that the dual of an axiom of GOt is an axiom of GOt, and the dual of an instance of a GOt rule is also an instance of a GOt rule except for H o w e v e r, the dual o f a finite instance o f is an instance of the derived rule of GOt for finite A which has the following derivation. It is sufficient, using the derived rules (DR-3) and (DR-4) of Lemma 3.3 to consider the case A = 181. a A et, A A Hence any GOt proof of a sequent - 4 A (with finite sequents throughout) can be converted to a GOt proof of A* >r*, as required. We n o w prove the converse o f Theorem 3.1, and hence the equivalence of GO and GOt for normal sequents. We begin with the following lemmas. Lemma 3.6 The following is a derived rule in both GO and GOt : cc >A (DR-5) a * A > ( c u t - 1 ) a a A C i ( c u
11 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC Lemma 3.7 The following are derived rules of GO: (a) a V 13 a f' > (3 V? Y s (b) a > ( 3 ) 4 5 a V13 ) (a) Note first that lemma 3.2 for Gat holds in GO since (DR-1) and (DR-2) are both derived rules of GO. Thus we need only consider (a) in the following form: A l A r - > f i V y A F- - 1 ( - - l a A --43) --, ( - l a A --, (3) (--,a A la, AI ' (DR-1) H i A ( - > (-113 A -, y ) ( D R - 5 ) A I' ( - 0 A -1y) ) (DR-5) (DR-2) a -> y y -> ( c u t ) a -> (b) ) 76 >,b > ---,a A t3 a V 13 a V Lemma 3.8 The following hold (a) t 0 6 > f5 V a, (DR-5) H A) (b) f o r finite A (with A 0 ) t (c) ( i ) t (ii) t
12 232 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS s ) (a) ( A A ---,a -) 0 -+ A -) 8 V a ( (DR-5) (b) By induction on the size of A. Note first that the result is trivial for A with one member. Suppose that A has at least one member; as the induction hypothesis assume that io -,A ( V A ) Leto!) = v A; then using the associative laws (c) it is sufficient to show that for any a, t as follows (ti v a) --, ô, a A la ( Theorem , A, ---,a -) - - ( --it) A la) (c) We leave the associative laws as an exercise for the reader. In the next theorem we must take into account the fact that V is primitive in GOt but not in GO. For any wff y we write y for the corresponding GO formula in which all occurrences of v are abbreviations, and similarly for sets of formulae. F By induction on the construction of the proof in GOt off' -) A. We may assume that all sequents occurring in the proof are finite.
13 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC Basis step Trivial for proofs of unit length; the axioms of GOt are axioms of GO. Induction Step Let the last step in the proof of I' ) A be an application of (i) ( e x t ) E,1 i.e. ( e x t ) By the induction hypothesis GO Y-) v i l EgF,FIcA So from lemma 3.8 (a), and the associative laws (lemma 3.8 (c)) as required t (ii) ( c u t - I) i.e. r-so, A O A2 (cut-1) By the induction hypothesis to r - - t o 6, By lemma 3.7 (a) and 3.8 (c) as required t IF ) ( v A (iii) (c u t -2 ) i.e. >A F2, a -+ A where I' = r i ur2, obvious since (cut-2) is a special case of (cut);
14 234 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS (iv ) ( A ) ) trivial; (v ) ( > A ) t trivial; (v ) ( - - > A ) t trivial; (v i) ( V a > A 1 3 i.e. A ci v (3 ) A By the induction hypothesis c7. v A and t so, by lemma 3.7 (b) t (vii) V ) t i.e. F f l 1 By the induction hypothesis Go ( v r ) VCT and so by lemma 3.8 (a) t (viii) trivial; (ix) ( > 1)1-
15 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC The last line in the proof is where f = a n d A = B y the induction hypothesis G O1 > VII. By (-1, >) we have t GO we have t Using (--* --,) t i.e. t Now use lemma 3.8 (b) to obtain as required. (x) ( trivial; ( x LI, a i.e. ( r n, w h e r e A =HUI 1 By the induction hypothesis so by lemma 3.7 (a) > (V if ) Vci, and t (V i f ) V o f f ) as required. Theorem 3.10 (The equivalence of GO and GOt for normal sequents) For normal GO sequents A o r A i f H
16 236 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS 'Only if' part from Theorem 3.1; 'if' part from Theorem The Semantics of GOt : Soundness and Completeness We now prove the soundness and (extended) completeness of GOt with respect to the relational semantics due to [Goldblatt (1974)]. The following account is similar to that of [Nishimura (1980) 3], but with a modified definition of the validity of sequents. Go t : Soundness A GOt-frame is a pair < X, i > where (1) X is a non-empty set, (2) I is an orthogonality relation on X. That is, X x X, and is irreflexive and symmetric. For x cx and Y X we say (i) x Y i f for every y EY, x y ; (ii) y * f x x Y 1 A subset Y of X is 1 A GOt-model is a triple < X, 1, D > where (1) < X, 1 > is a GOt-frame (2) D is a function assigning to each propositional variable p a closed subset D(p) of X. Given a GOt-model A, the notation II a II, where a is a wff, is defined as follows. Note that for any Y X, Y* is closed, always closed. ( (2) I I -- (3) I l a A011# = / 4 ( ( SOla II if is
17 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC For arbitrary f (not necessarily finite) it is convenient to define: HAFjj = c l Definition Define Val follows: (1) for formulae V a l (2) for sequents Val e( F 0 otherwise. 0 if x A r ' l l a n d x M V A I l t I otherwise. Definitions We say I' -> A is GOt-realisable i f for some Gat-model /11 = < X, D> and some x ( 1 A sequent which is not GOt-realisable is said to be GOt-valid. Thus r, A is GOt-valid iff II A FL The following will be useful in discussing the semantics of GOt. It is easily seen that for any closed sets Y Hence (i) Y i g Y2 imp lie s Y 2 ( i i ) Y ( i ) a 11 H 1 1, H i m p l i e s 1 1 ( (ii) 11A ( v A i 114 U V A2 V ( Ai, A2) Ilee (iv) 11 H V ( A i j g - II V A2I vi Theorem 4.1 (Soundness of G0 t) Every GOt-provable sequent is Gat-valid.
18 238 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS By induction on the construction of proofs in GOt. Every axiom o f GOt is GOt-valid. The rules o f GOt preserve GOt-validity. Demonstration of this is routine, but we illustrate some of the more awkward cases. The other cases are left to the reader. (cut-i) Suppose H A r c il v(a, A1)1 Hv(a, Ai)iltgll v(a,, A2)1 A (cut-2) Suppose that Then j A )) and llochtg-11 VA211ff; then by the above, and so H AI j x r2) Arillog 11,# = Ha H 11, Ar, and I HA A 1,2..ie g g II g j a n j A r 2 l l o = 11 A ( g 11 VA 1 V A H Suppose that j j a Then j VAII.#*gliallie* and H V A Ilt*Çlll311,/t* Therefore V A H a ill* n 11P 114*, and (Hallo Therefore whenever both a -4 A and (3 > A are GOt-valid, so is a V p - 4 This completes the soundness proof for GOt. GOt : Completeness The following is similar to Nishimura's treatment for GO. Definitions A sequent 1" > A is consistent iff A. The set F is consistent iff for some a, F > The set f is complete if f (a) I" is consistent and (b) = fy : 1
19 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC Lemma 4.2 [Lindenbaum's Lemma] Any consistent set F can be extended to some complete set F. Put r' = ty : Hoot r (i) Suppose H o f f ' Huot Y1, Y By m applications of (cut-2) H (ii) Since I' is consistent, then for some a, F ' Therefore a çt f ', so by (a) b O t r -) a and r is consistent. Hence r is complete. Lemma 4.3 (a) I f r a is consistent, then (i) y 5 F implies i s consistent, (ii) e f implies - > 6 is consistent ; (b) if I' i s consistent, then s (i) y 6 f implies a-3 i s consistent, (ii) 6 1 We do (a)(i) and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Since y e l -- y -3 y -) a Hence --la-3 i s consistent. ) y a ( c u t - -nu (-3 --)t (cu t- a a --3 a ( (c ut-i )
20 240 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBB INS Definition The GOt-canonical model, ilt is defined as follows. < X, I (1) X = IF : IF is complete} (2) f i r iff for some a, either (a) a e r and or (b) a a n d e l " ; (3) fo r propositional variables p D(p)= : p E FL Lemma 4.4 I t is a GOt-model. (a) I is an orthogonality relation. Symmetry is obvious f ro m the definition. Irreflexivity follows as below. If I' I F then for some a, a erʻ and œla F. Therefore H all 13 and I' is not consistent, as follows: a > (3 (ext) (b) D (p ) is closed, i.e. D(p) = D(p)** Since Y c Y** for all Y, it is sufficient to show that D(p)**g_ D(p). Suppose therefore that some FE4D(p). p a n d 1 LetE = {a:1 Then E ID(p). That is, E ED(p)*. But F s i n c e (i) if y f, p ) --cy is consistent by lemma 4.3 (a) (i) and therefore O E ; (ii) if - -, 6 is consistent by lemma 4.3 (a)(ii) and therefore 6 OE. Hence D(p )** D(p ), and therefore D(p) is closed. Before we prove the Main Theorem for I t lemma.
21 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC Lemma 4.5 (a) ( i ) F - - (ii) HGOt ( - -, a A ---,r3)-> a v (b) The following are derived rules of GOt F-» a A 13 a F - ) a AP s (a) a - a - l a A >--1 a -1 a (-). ---1) - -, A -,IT; a - ) - - -, a A - v - > --1(--ict A -13) ( A -* ) (cut-1) ( v, ) t A --, (3) We leave (ii) as an easy exercise for the reader. (b) Use ( A Theorem 4.6 (Main Theorem for ifft = < X, 1, D>1 For any F a X, y (Throughout this proof we write Hall for 1 By induction on the length of the wff y. a 11/gt) (1) y = p, some propositional variable p e r iff 1 (2) y = a A (3 a A (3E1" i f f a A13, since[' is complete, iff - (-) A)t i f a e l iff FE lla h I and fell1311, by the induction hypothesis, i f r
22 242 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBINS ( There are two cases to consider: (a) suppose --lo te Then F i r " for every r such that a e i.e. : a E r} l i a l by the induction hypothesis. Hence re11a11* (b) suppose ---,a e r Then i s consistent. Let A = 16 : H - Ella 11 by the induction hypothesis. But L A, since if y E r, then a -> i s consistent by lemma 4.3 (b)(i) and therefore --lye A, and if -ny, then a y is consistent by lemma 4.3 (b)(ii), and therefore y e A. So therefore F e l l (4) y = a V [ 3 a v e l ' i f H iff H i f A - i f F Cli ( - l a A 13), from steps (2) and (3) above, iff r Theorem 4.7 (Completeness of G0t) If F A is GOt-valid, then [ - Suppose Got 1E-4 A, i.e. that 1 that 11 AI ' H VA U Let t f a : I that A is consistent. Then it is easy to show that - A -* - i t is consistent. Let l a : HGot a l ; then / is complete. We claim that (1) t E l l A F (2) / ell A - - (3) t
23 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC (1) and (2) are immediate, using Theorem 4.6 and the fact that F and --IA ÇE. Consider claim (3). Suppose that 'y E t and T h e n there is a finite A' ÇA with H Hence - -, ---,A', SO h - Alternatively, suppose that, y c t and y cx. Then there is a finite A' ÇA w i t h H H Thus claim (3) is verified. By (2) and (3) together, t O il A 1 e II Al" l let \II va a n d we have shown that 1 The following corollary is immediate. Theorem 4.8 (Compactness of G0 t) For arbitrary I" and A, I ' >A is GOt-realisable i f every f i subsequent of F > A is Gar-realisable. Remark I f r--4 A is a finite G o t consistent sequent, the completeness proof above can be modified to provide a finite GOt model that realises >A. This is done as in Nishimura (1980) * 41 by restriction to a suitable finite admissible set of formulae Q containing 1' and A. In our case Q is admissible means (a) Q is closed under subformulae (b) i f p then p Q (c) i f a V f 3 Q then ( - -, a A (3) Q. Thus Theorem 4.9 GOt has the finite model property. 5 G O I We obtain GOtM, the orthomodular extension of GOt, in a manner similar to Nishimura, by adding to GOt the rule (OM) -113 (OM)
24 244 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBING The resulting calculus G O I for normal sequents in virtue of the following theorem. Theorem 5.1 Let R be a rule whose upper and lower sequents are all normal. Let SC normal sequents. The SC sequents. By induction on the length of proofs GOtM : Soundness and Completeness We proceed by analogy with GOM. Thus a GOtM-frame is a triple < X, I, 'V> where (1) < X, i > is a GOt-frame (2) I P is a non-empty set of I-closed subsets of X such that (a) W is closed under set-theoretic intersection and the operation * (b) for any Y, Z Y Z and 1 A GOt-model is a 4-tuple < X, I, W ( (2) < X, I, 4 D is a function assigning to each propositional variable p a closed subset in W. The notations \ T a l before. The expressions GOtM-realisable and GOtM-valid are defined similarly. Theorem 5.2 (Soundness of G O I Every G O I By induction on the construction of proofs in GOtM a s in the GOt
25 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR Q UANTUM LOGIC 245 case but with the following addition. (Let i t be a GOtM-model, and write Mali for lialla0 (OM) Suppose d c il a I i Suppose also that 11 I I n II (311 = 0, so that Ha ll Then Hall = j1 3, so that g ita ll and hencell aallg11,1311 We now sketch the proof of the Completeness Theorem for GOt M. We say a sequent f, ) A is GOIM-consistent iff 4 ' ' a set I' is GOW-consistent i f for some a, - F The set F is GOt M-complete i f (a ) F is GOt M-consistent and (b) F = {y: 1 Gotm r Y 1 Lindenbaum's Lemma for GOtM can then be proved exactly as for GOt in lemma 4.2. Definition The GOtM-canonical model I t i s defined as follows. f i < X, I (1) X = : I' is G O t M - (2) r i i f f for some a, either (a) a cl" and --la e r, or (b) c f and a ; ( using (4); (4) f o r propositional variables p, D(p)= : p e r}. Theorem 5.3 i s a GOtM-model and realises every GOtM-consistent sequent. We sketch the proof. First show that < X, I exactly as in lemma 4.4 for l i t, and then establish that
26 246 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBING (5.4) f e l l a H i f f c l e f exactly as in Theorem 4.6 (where we write Hall for lia Now, exactly as in the proof of completeness for GOt, we show that if 1 ( To complete the proof we have to show that i t t is a GOtM-model. Suppose that 11 a 11cHI3 Il 1a 11*n111311= (b. Then by ( obtain 1 Using (5.4) this means that 11011g H all. We then have the following theorem immediately. Theorem 5.6 (completeness of GOtM) If I" A is GOtM-valid, then i 6 Concluding Remarks As noted in I, for finite F and A, the intuitive interpretation of the sequent F ) A in classical logic may be rendered equivalently as (i) whenever all the formulae in r are true, at least one of the formulae in A is true; (ii) whenever a conjunction o f all the formulae in I ' is true, any disjunction of all the formulae in A is true. The interpretation of finite GO(M) sequents follows (I), that of finite GOt(M) sequents (ii). Since (i) and (ii) are not equivalent for both GO(M) and GOt(M) there is reason to think that the meanings o f sequents in these calculi differ from their meanings in classical logic. But there seems to be no conclusive reason for regarding either (I) or (ii) as the more fundamental intuitive interpretation. The primitive rules for the A - --Ifragment of GOt naturally differ from those o f GO. But the most interesting difference between the systems occurs in their structural rules. GO(M) has the f ill cut rule among its primitives. Owing to the normal fo rm theorem GO(M)
27 A REGULAR CALCULUS FOR QUANTUM LOGIC requires only the restricted cut-rules of GOt(M). But clearly GO(M) tolerates full cut. GOt(M) does not tolerate full cut. GOt(M) + (cut) cla ssica l logic, as in shown in the lemma below. There is in the literature the suggestion (2) that one can expect only elastic constraints on what is to count as a logic but that toleration of full cut is one constraint required to reflect the necessary transitivity of implication. But GOt(M) illustrates the fact that one can reflect the transitivity of implication with weaker rules. I f GO(M) are to count as logics, there seems to be no good reason for denying that status to the extended calculi GOt(M). Lemma 6.1 GOt(M) + (cut) = classical logic. It is sufficient to obtain the result for finite sequents. We are required to show that ( > --) GOt + (cut). I", --la ) A a a,a > (c ut) F. a A f )A, a, --la ( c u t ) ( ) A ) (
28 248 N. J. CUTLAND and P.F. GIBBING for finite A F---) A, a finite number of applications of (-1-4) a - - -, A I finite number of applications of ( > --) a Ar3 1 REFERENCES Goldblatt R. Semantic Analysis of Orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 1974; 3: Hacking 1. What is Logic? Journal of Philosophy 1979; LXXVI: Nishimura H. Sequential Method in Quantum Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 1980; 45:
b. Induction (LfP 50 3)
b. Induction (LfP 50 3) b.i. The principle of mathematical induction The principle of mathematical induction is a property of natural numbers. b.i.1. Natural numbers The natural numbers are the non-negative
More informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
More informationCanonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism
Canonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism A. Avron 1, A. Ciabattoni 2, and A. Zamansky 1 1 Tel-Aviv University 2 Vienna University of Technology Abstract. We apply the semantic
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems are
More informationCHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning
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 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 ALTERNATIVE NATURAL DEDUCTION FOR THE INTUITIONISTIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 45/1 (2016), pp 33 51 http://dxdoiorg/1018778/0138-068045103 Mirjana Ilić 1 AN ALTERNATIVE NATURAL DEDUCTION FOR THE INTUITIONISTIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Abstract
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 informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1)
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1) SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems
More informationFirst-Order Logic. Chapter Overview Syntax
Chapter 10 First-Order Logic 10.1 Overview First-Order Logic is the calculus one usually has in mind when using the word logic. It is expressive enough for all of mathematics, except for those concepts
More informationPartially commutative linear logic: sequent calculus and phase semantics
Partially commutative linear logic: sequent calculus and phase semantics Philippe de Groote Projet Calligramme INRIA-Lorraine & CRIN CNRS 615 rue du Jardin Botanique - B.P. 101 F 54602 Villers-lès-Nancy
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 informationSequent calculi of quantum logic with strict implication
CTFM 2015 9/7 Sequent calculi of quantum logic with strict implication Tokyo Institute of Technology Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering Tomoaki Kawano About quantum logic Sequent calculi
More informationDual-Intuitionistic Logic and Some Other Logics
Dual-Intuitionistic Logic and Some Other Logics Hiroshi Aoyama 1 Introduction This paper is a sequel to Aoyama(2003) and Aoyama(2004). In this paper, we will study various proof-theoretic and model-theoretic
More informationHypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models
Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models Agata Ciabattoni Mauro Ferrari Abstract In this paper we define cut-free hypersequent calculi for some intermediate logics semantically
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 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 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 information5-valued Non-deterministic Semantics for The Basic Paraconsistent Logic mci
5-valued Non-deterministic Semantics for The Basic Paraconsistent Logic mci Arnon Avron School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University http://www.math.tau.ac.il/ aa/ March 7, 2008 Abstract One of the
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 informationA Discrete Duality Between Nonmonotonic Consequence Relations and Convex Geometries
A Discrete Duality Between Nonmonotonic Consequence Relations and Convex Geometries Johannes Marti and Riccardo Pinosio Draft from April 5, 2018 Abstract In this paper we present a duality between nonmonotonic
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 informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More informationThe natural numbers. Definition. Let X be any inductive set. We define the set of natural numbers as N = C(X).
The natural numbers As mentioned earlier in the course, the natural numbers can be constructed using the axioms of set theory. In this note we want to discuss the necessary details of this construction.
More informationADMISSIBILITY OF ACKERMANN S RULE δ IN RELEVANT LOGICS
Logic and Logical Philosophy Volume 22 (2013), 411 427 DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2013.018 Gemma Robles ADMISSIBILITY OF ACKERMANN S RULE δ IN RELEVANT LOGICS Abstract. It is proved that Ackermann s rule δ is admissible
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 informationNotes on Quantum Logic
Notes on Quantum Logic Version 1.0 David B. Malament Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine dmalamen@uci.edu Contents 1 Formal (sentential) quantum logic 2 2 The
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 informationOn Urquhart s C Logic
On Urquhart s C Logic Agata Ciabattoni Dipartimento di Informatica Via Comelico, 39 20135 Milano, Italy ciabatto@dsiunimiit Abstract In this paper we investigate the basic many-valued logics introduced
More information1. 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 informationConsequence Relations and Natural Deduction
Consequence Relations and Natural Deduction Joshua D. Guttman Worcester Polytechnic Institute September 9, 2010 Contents 1 Consequence Relations 1 2 A Derivation System for Natural Deduction 3 3 Derivations
More informationProving Completeness for Nested Sequent Calculi 1
Proving Completeness for Nested Sequent Calculi 1 Melvin Fitting abstract. Proving the completeness of classical propositional logic by using maximal consistent sets is perhaps the most common method there
More informationVC-DENSITY FOR TREES
VC-DENSITY FOR TREES ANTON BOBKOV Abstract. We show that for the theory of infinite trees we have vc(n) = n for all n. VC density was introduced in [1] by Aschenbrenner, Dolich, Haskell, MacPherson, and
More informationInterpolation via translations
Interpolation via translations Walter Carnielli 2,3 João Rasga 1,3 Cristina Sernadas 1,3 1 DM, IST, TU Lisbon, Portugal 2 CLE and IFCH, UNICAMP, Brazil 3 SQIG - Instituto de Telecomunicações, Portugal
More informationLecture Notes on Sequent Calculus
Lecture Notes on Sequent Calculus 15-816: Modal Logic Frank Pfenning Lecture 8 February 9, 2010 1 Introduction In this lecture we present the sequent calculus and its theory. The sequent calculus was originally
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 information1. 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 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 informationLogics for Compact Hausdorff Spaces via de Vries Duality
Logics for Compact Hausdorff Spaces via de Vries Duality Thomas Santoli ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam June 16, 2016 Outline Main goal: developing a propositional calculus for compact Hausdorff spaces
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 informationModel Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5. Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark
Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5 Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark Third Indian School on Logic and its Applications Hyderabad, January 29, 2010 Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture
More informationExtended Abstract: Reconsidering Intuitionistic Duality
Extended Abstract: Reconsidering Intuitionistic Duality Aaron Stump, Harley Eades III, Ryan McCleeary Computer Science The University of Iowa 1 Introduction This paper proposes a new syntax and proof system
More informationPropositional Logic: Models and Proofs
Propositional Logic: Models and Proofs C. R. Ramakrishnan CSE 505 1 Syntax 2 Model Theory 3 Proof Theory and Resolution Compiled at 11:51 on 2016/11/02 Computing with Logic Propositional Logic CSE 505
More informationSemantic Metatheory of SL: Mathematical Induction
Semantic Metatheory of SL: Mathematical Induction Preliminary matters: why and when do we need Mathematical Induction? We need it when we want prove that a certain claim (n) holds for all n N (0, 1, 2,
More informationEquivalent Types in Lambek Calculus and Linear Logic
Equivalent Types in Lambek Calculus and Linear Logic Mati Pentus Steklov Mathematical Institute, Vavilov str. 42, Russia 117966, Moscow GSP-1 MIAN Prepublication Series for Logic and Computer Science LCS-92-02
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 informationcis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006
cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006 today s topics: propositional logic cis32-spring2006-sklar-lec18 1 Introduction Weak (search-based) problem-solving does not scale to real problems. To succeed, problem
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 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 informationAutomata theory. An algorithmic approach. Lecture Notes. Javier Esparza
Automata theory An algorithmic approach Lecture Notes Javier Esparza July 2 22 2 Chapter 9 Automata and Logic A regular expression can be seen as a set of instructions ( a recipe ) for generating the words
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 informationTR : Binding Modalities
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2012 TR-2012011: Binding Modalities Sergei N. Artemov Tatiana Yavorskaya (Sidon) Follow this and
More informationGeneral Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations
General Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations OFER ARIELI AND ARNON AVRON, Department of Computer Science, School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
More informationOn Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
On Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Vítězslav Švejdar Jan 29, 2005 The original publication is available at CMUC. Abstract The well-known Dyckoff s 1992 calculus/procedure for intuitionistic
More informationA generalization of modal definability
A generalization of modal definability Tin Perkov Polytechnic of Zagreb Abstract. Known results on global definability in basic modal logic are generalized in the following sense. A class of Kripke models
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 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 informationA GENERALISATION OF THE TARSKI-HERBRAND DEDUCTION THEOREM. Si. SURMA
Logique & Analyse 135-136 (1991), 319-331 A GENERALISATION OF THE TARSKI-HERBRAND DEDUCTION THEOREM Si. SURMA The paper provides a condition which characterises the implicational fragment of classical
More informationThe Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic
The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz February 5, 2014 Propositional Logic 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets, and therefore, propositions are limited to stating facts on sets
More informationThe semantics of propositional logic
The semantics of propositional logic Readings: Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Huth and Ryan. In this module, we will nail down the formal definition of a logical formula, and describe the semantics of propositional
More information1 Topology Definition of a topology Basis (Base) of a topology The subspace topology & the product topology on X Y 3
Index Page 1 Topology 2 1.1 Definition of a topology 2 1.2 Basis (Base) of a topology 2 1.3 The subspace topology & the product topology on X Y 3 1.4 Basic topology concepts: limit points, closed sets,
More informationTopos Theory. Lectures 17-20: The interpretation of logic in categories. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello.
logic s Lectures 17-20: logic in 2 / 40 logic s Interpreting first-order logic in In Logic, first-order s are a wide class of formal s used for talking about structures of any kind (where the restriction
More informationHerbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness
CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook and T. Pitassi) Fall, 2014 Herbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness The Herbrand Theorem We now consider a complete method for proving the unsatisfiability of sets of first-order
More informationcse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018
cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics CHAPTER 7 SLIDES Slides Set 1 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics
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 informationA CUT-FREE SIMPLE SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR MODAL LOGIC S5
THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 1, Number 1, June 2008 3 A CUT-FREE SIMPLE SEQUENT CALCULUS FOR MODAL LOGIC S5 FRANCESCA POGGIOLESI University of Florence and University of Paris 1 Abstract In this
More information7 RC Simulates RA. Lemma: For every RA expression E(A 1... A k ) there exists a DRC formula F with F V (F ) = {A 1,..., A k } and
7 RC Simulates RA. We now show that DRC (and hence TRC) is at least as expressive as RA. That is, given an RA expression E that mentions at most C, there is an equivalent DRC expression E that mentions
More informationWhat are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos
What are the recursion theoretic properties of a set of axioms? Understanding a paper by William Craig Armando B. Matos armandobcm@yahoo.com February 5, 2014 Abstract This note is for personal use. It
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 information1. Tarski consequence and its modelling
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 36:1/2 (2007), pp. 7 19 Grzegorz Malinowski THAT p + q = c(onsequence) 1 Abstract The famous Tarski s conditions for a mapping on sets of formulas of a language:
More informationGödel s Incompleteness Theorems
Seminar Report Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems Ahmet Aspir Mark Nardi 28.02.2018 Supervisor: Dr. Georg Moser Abstract Gödel s incompleteness theorems are very fundamental for mathematics and computational
More informationFrom Bi-facial Truth to Bi-facial Proofs
S. Wintein R. A. Muskens From Bi-facial Truth to Bi-facial Proofs Abstract. In their recent paper Bi-facial truth: a case for generalized truth values Zaitsev and Shramko [7] distinguish between an ontological
More informationAutomated Support for the Investigation of Paraconsistent and Other Logics
Automated Support for the Investigation of Paraconsistent and Other Logics Agata Ciabattoni 1, Ori Lahav 2, Lara Spendier 1, and Anna Zamansky 1 1 Vienna University of Technology 2 Tel Aviv University
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 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 informationThe Modal Logic of Pure Provability
The Modal Logic of Pure Provability Samuel R. Buss Department of Mathematics University of California, San Diego July 11, 2002 Abstract We introduce a propositional modal logic PP of pure provability in
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - IV
Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK ZS 2015/2016 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV ZS 2015/2016 1 / 19 Tableau method (from the previous lecture)
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 informationIntroduction to Intuitionistic Logic
Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic August 31, 2016 We deal exclusively with propositional intuitionistic logic. The language is defined as follows. φ := p φ ψ φ ψ φ ψ φ := φ and φ ψ := (φ ψ) (ψ φ). A
More informationSOME REMARKS ON MAEHARA S METHOD. Abstract
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 30/3 (2001), pp. 147 154 Takahiro Seki SOME REMARKS ON MAEHARA S METHOD Abstract In proving the interpolation theorem in terms of sequent calculus, Maehara s method
More informationAbstract In this paper, we introduce the logic of a control action S4F and the logic of a continuous control action S4C on the state space of a dynami
Modal Logics and Topological Semantics for Hybrid Systems Mathematical Sciences Institute Technical Report 97-05 S. N. Artemov, J. M. Davoren y and A. Nerode z Mathematical Sciences Institute Cornell University
More informationCS411 Notes 3 Induction and Recursion
CS411 Notes 3 Induction and Recursion A. Demers 5 Feb 2001 These notes present inductive techniques for defining sets and subsets, for defining functions over sets, and for proving that a property holds
More informationSystems of modal logic
499 Modal and Temporal Logic Systems of modal logic Marek Sergot Department of Computing Imperial College, London utumn 2008 Further reading: B.F. Chellas, Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University
More informationCut-elimination for Provability Logic GL
Cut-elimination for Provability Logic GL Rajeev Goré and Revantha Ramanayake Computer Sciences Laboratory The Australian National University { Rajeev.Gore, revantha }@rsise.anu.edu.au Abstract. In 1983,
More informationAn Introduction to Proof Theory
An Introduction to Proof Theory Class 1: Foundations Agata Ciabattoni and Shawn Standefer anu lss december 2016 anu Our Aim To introduce proof theory, with a focus on its applications in philosophy, linguistics
More informationSet theory. Math 304 Spring 2007
Math 304 Spring 2007 Set theory Contents 1. Sets 2 1.1. Objects and set formation 2 1.2. Unions and intersections 3 1.3. Differences 4 1.4. Power sets 4 1.5. Ordered pairs and binary,amscdcartesian products
More informationEquational Logic. Chapter Syntax Terms and Term Algebras
Chapter 2 Equational Logic 2.1 Syntax 2.1.1 Terms and Term Algebras The natural logic of algebra is equational logic, whose propositions are universally quantified identities between terms built up from
More informationPart 1: Propositional Logic
Part 1: Propositional Logic Literature (also for first-order logic) Schöning: Logik für Informatiker, Spektrum Fitting: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer 1 Last time 1.1 Syntax
More informationFrom Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics
From Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics Ori Lahav School of Computer Science Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel Email: orilahav@post.tau.ac.il Abstract We provide a general method
More informationTABLEAUX VARIANTS OF SOME MODAL AND RELEVANT SYSTEMS
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 17:3/4 (1988), pp. 92 98 reedition 2005 [original edition, pp. 92 103] P. Bystrov TBLEUX VRINTS OF SOME MODL ND RELEVNT SYSTEMS The tableaux-constructions have a
More informationComputational Logic. Davide Martinenghi. Spring Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi (1/30)
Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Spring 2010 Computational Logic Davide Martinenghi (1/30) Propositional Logic - sequent calculus To overcome the problems of natural
More informationKripke Semantics for Basic Sequent Systems
Kripke Semantics for Basic Sequent Systems Arnon Avron and Ori Lahav School of Computer Science, Tel Aviv University, Israel {aa,orilahav}@post.tau.ac.il Abstract. We present a general method for providing
More information127: Lecture notes HT17. Week 8. (1) If Oswald didn t shoot Kennedy, someone else did. (2) If Oswald hadn t shot Kennedy, someone else would have.
I. Counterfactuals I.I. Indicative vs Counterfactual (LfP 8.1) The difference between indicative and counterfactual conditionals comes out in pairs like the following: (1) If Oswald didn t shoot Kennedy,
More informationMath 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008
Math 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008 Closed sets We have been operating at a fundamental level at which a topological space is a set together
More informationLecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs
IAS/PCMI Summer Session 2000 Clay Mathematics Undergraduate Program Advanced Course on Computational Complexity Lecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs David Mix Barrington and Alexis Maciel July
More informationLecture Notes on Identity and Inversion
Lecture Notes on Identity and Inversion 15-816: Linear Logic Frank Pfenning Lecture 8 February 13, 2012 In the last lecture we saw cut elimination as the global version of cut reduction. In this lecture
More informationHANDOUT AND SET THEORY. Ariyadi Wijaya
HANDOUT LOGIC AND SET THEORY Ariyadi Wijaya Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science Yogyakarta State University 2009 1 Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics
More informationCompleteness in the Monadic Predicate Calculus. We have a system of eight rules of proof. Let's list them:
Completeness in the Monadic Predicate Calculus We have a system of eight rules of proof. Let's list them: PI At any stage of a derivation, you may write down a sentence φ with {φ} as its premiss set. TC
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 information