Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus

Similar documents
2. Use quantifiers to express the associative law for multiplication of real numbers.

Predicate Calculus - Syntax

Proving Arguments Valid in Predicate Calculus

Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity. CS 130 Discrete Structures

Denote John by j and Smith by s, is a bachelor by predicate letter B. The statements (1) and (2) may be written as B(j) and B(s).

Predicate Calculus. Lila Kari. University of Waterloo. Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 59

1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers

Mat 243 Exam 1 Review

Notes on Propositional and First-Order Logic (CPSC 229 Class Notes, January )

Philosophy 240 Symbolic Logic Russell Marcus Hamilton College Fall 2014

Introduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190)

Introduction to first-order logic:


Propositional Language - Semantics

Discrete Structures for Computer Science

Quantifiers Here is a (true) statement about real numbers: Every real number is either rational or irrational.

Proofs. Example of an axiom in this system: Given two distinct points, there is exactly one line that contains them.

Predicate Logic: Sematics Part 1

2/2/2018. CS 103 Discrete Structures. Chapter 1. Propositional Logic. Chapter 1.1. Propositional Logic

PREDICATE LOGIC. Schaum's outline chapter 4 Rosen chapter 1. September 11, ioc.pdf

3/29/2017. Logic. Propositions and logical operations. Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations

Predicate Logic - Deductive Systems

4 Quantifiers and Quantified Arguments 4.1 Quantifiers

Propositional Logic Not Enough

Semantics I, Rutgers University Week 3-1 Yimei Xiang September 17, Predicate logic

Predicate Logic. Example. Statements in Predicate Logic. Some statements cannot be expressed in propositional logic, such as: Predicate Logic

Chapter 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements

06 From Propositional to Predicate Logic

Review: Potential stumbling blocks

3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017

Predicates and Quantifiers. CS 231 Dianna Xu

Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic

INSTITIÚID TEICNEOLAÍOCHTA CHEATHARLACH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CARLOW PREDICATE LOGIC

Review. Propositions, propositional operators, truth tables. Logical Equivalences. Tautologies & contradictions

Topic #3 Predicate Logic. Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic. 1 Predicate Logic Symbolization

COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking. Proofs. Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University

First order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof

Announcement. Homework 1

Predicate Logic Quantifier Rules

! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers. ! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier. ! Negating Quantifiers. ! De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers

MAT2345 Discrete Math

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 First Order (Predicate) Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1

Test 1 Solutions(COT3100) (1) Prove that the following Absorption Law is correct. I.e, prove this is a tautology:

1 Predicates and Quantifiers

CS1021. Why logic? Logic about inference or argument. Start from assumptions or axioms. Make deductions according to rules of reasoning.

CS2336 Discrete Mathematics

Mathematical Logic. Reasoning in First Order Logic. Chiara Ghidini. FBK-IRST, Trento, Italy

ECOM Discrete Mathematics

Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications

Predicate Logic & Quantification

Ling 130 Notes: Predicate Logic and Natural Deduction

Introduction to Predicate Logic Part 1. Professor Anita Wasilewska Lecture Notes (1)

Unit I LOGIC AND PROOFS. B. Thilaka Applied Mathematics

First Order Logic (FOL) 1 znj/dm2017

Predicate Logic. CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo

Discrete Mathematics

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS BA202

Logic and Modelling. Introduction to Predicate Logic. Jörg Endrullis. VU University Amsterdam

Section Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier

University of Ottawa CSI 2101 Midterm Test Instructor: Lucia Moura. March 1, :00 pm Duration: 1:15 hs

DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE Chapter 3.3 Statements with Multiple Quantifiers If you want to establish the truth of a statement of the form

Logic Overview, I. and T T T T F F F T F F F F

Symbolising Quantified Arguments

Solutions to Exercises (Sections )

2-4: The Use of Quantifiers

Section 1.1 Propositions

Intro to Logic and Proofs

Predicate Logic. Andreas Klappenecker

LECTURE NOTES DISCRETE MATHEMATICS. Eusebius Doedel

Discrete Mathematics for CS Spring 2006 Forbes HW 1 Solutions

COMP 2600: Formal Methods for Software Engineeing

CS100: DISCRETE STRUCTURES. Lecture 5: Logic (Ch1)

Rules of Inference. Arguments and Validity

1 Introduction to Predicate Resolution

Propositional Functions. Quantifiers. Assignment of values. Existential Quantification of P(x) Universal Quantification of P(x)

Logical Operators. Conjunction Disjunction Negation Exclusive Or Implication Biconditional

Intelligent Agents. First Order Logic. Ute Schmid. Cognitive Systems, Applied Computer Science, Bamberg University. last change: 19.

Automated Reasoning Lecture 5: First-Order Logic

Propositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/30/16

Section Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier

Mathacle. PSet ---- Algebra, Logic. Level Number Name: Date: I. BASICS OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

University of Ottawa CSI 2101 Midterm Test Instructor: Lucia Moura. February 9, :30 pm Duration: 1:50 hs. Closed book, no calculators

Rules Build Arguments Rules Building Arguments

Predicate Logic Thursday, January 17, 2013 Chittu Tripathy Lecture 04

First Order Logic Implication (4A) Young W. Lim 4/6/17

Lecture 10: Predicate Logic and Its Language

Review. Propositional Logic. Propositions atomic and compound. Operators: negation, and, or, xor, implies, biconditional.

All psychiatrists are doctors All doctors are college graduates All psychiatrists are college graduates

Predicate Logic - Semantic Tableau

Propositional Logic. Jason Filippou UMCP. ason Filippou UMCP) Propositional Logic / 38

1 The Foundation: Logic and Proofs

Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques

Supplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009

CS 214 Introduction to Discrete Structures. Chapter 1 Formal Logic. Mikel D. Petty, Ph.D.

Outline. Rules of Inferences Discrete Mathematics I MATH/COSC 1056E. Example: Existence of Superman. Outline

Predicate Calculus. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson

Logic and Propositional Calculus

Logic: The Big Picture

Discrete Structures for Computer Science

Transcription:

Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus Lila Kari University of Waterloo Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 42

Formal deducibility for predicate calculus The formal deducibility in predicate calculus (first-order logic) is analogous to that in propositional logic, except that is defined by some additional rules of formal deduction. The 11 rules of formal deduction for propositional logic are included in first-order logic, but the formulas occurring in them are now formulas in L pred. The additional rules concerning the quantifiers and equality symbol are as follows Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 2 / 42

Additional rules of formal deduction (12) ( ) If Σ xa(x) is a theorem then Σ A(t), where t is any term, is a theorem. (13) ( +) If Σ A(u) is a theorem and u does not occur in Σ then Σ xa(x) is a theorem. (14) ( ) If Σ, A(u) B is a theorem, and u does not occur in Σ or in B then Σ, xa(x) B is a theorem. (15) ( +) If Σ A(t) is a theorem then Σ xa (x) is a theorem, where A (x) results from A(t) by replacing some (not necessarily all) occurrences of t by x. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 3 / 42

Additional rules of formal deduction contd. (16) ( ) If Σ A(t 1 ) is a theorem and Σ t 1 t 2 is a theorem then Σ A (t 2 ) is a theorem, where A (t 2 ) results from A(t 1 ) by replacing some (not necessarily all) occurrences of t 1 by t 2. (17) ( +) u u is a theorem. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 4 / 42

Remarks In ( ) the formula A(t) results from A(x) by substituting t for all occurrences of x. It is the same for the cases of ( +) and ( ). In ( +), and ( ) however, another kind of replacement is employed, which should be distinguished from substitution. The conditions u not occurring in Σ in ( +), and u not occurring in Σ or B in ( ) call for some explanation. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 5 / 42

The rule ( +) means intuitively that from Any member α of a set has a certain property we can deduce that Every member of the set has this property. For instance, in order to demonstrate that every point on the perpendicular bisector of a segment AB is equidistant from A and B, it is sufficient to prove this statement for any point α on the bisector. The arbitrariness of α means that the choice of α is independent of the premises in the deduction. This point is expressed in ( +) by u not occurring in Σ, where u expresses α, and Σ expresses the premises. This is similar for the case of ( ). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 6 / 42

What NOT to do! The following sequences do NOT form (formal) proofs because the rules ( +) and ( ) are used incorrectly in them. Example 1. (1) A(u) A(u) by (Ref) (2) A(u) xa(x) by ( +), (1) Example 2. (1) A(u) A(u) by (Ref) (2) xa(x) A(u) by ( ), (1) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 7 / 42

Formal deducibility: definition Definition. Suppose Σ is a set of formulas in L pred and A is a formula in L pred. We say that A is formally deducible from Σ in first-order logic iff Σ A can be generated by the 17 rules of formal deduction. Formal deduction using the 17 rules is also called natural deduction for predicate (first-order) logic. The additional rules of formal deduction for predicate logic are similar to those in the [H&R] text, but with a different notation: ( +) corresponds to = i, ( ) to = e, ( ) to x e, ( +) to x i, ( +) to x i and ( ) to x e. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 8 / 42

Example Prove that xa(x) x A(x). 1. A(u) A(u) u not in A(x), by Ref 2. A(u) x A(x) 1, ( +) 3. x A(x) A(u) 2, ( ), A A, Repl. 4. x A(x) xa(x) 3, ( +), u does not occur in premises 5. xa(x) x A(x) 4, ( ), A A, Tr. Exercise: Prove that If A B then B A. ( ) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 9 / 42

Example continued We now consider the converse. xa(x) x A(x). 1. xa(x) xa(x) by Ref 2. xa(x) A(u) u not in A(x), 1, ( ) 3. A(u) xa(x) 2, ( ) 4. x A(x) xa(x) 3, ( ), u does not occur elsewhere Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 10 / 42

Lemma. Suppose A A, B B and C(u) C (u). Then: 1 A A 2 A B A B. 3 A B A B. 4 A B A B. 5 A B A B. 6 xc(x) xc (x). 7 xc(x) xc (x). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 11 / 42

Theorem. (Replacement of equivalent formulas) Let A, B, C Form(L pred ) with B C. Let A result from A by substituting some (not necessarily all) occurrences of B by C. Then A A. Theorem. (Complementation) Suppose A is a formula composed of atoms of L pred, the connectives,, and the two quantifiers by the formation rules concerned, and A is the formula obtained by exchanging and, and, and negating all atoms. Then A A. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 12 / 42

Soundness and completeness of formal deduction (17 rules) for predicate logic Theorem. (Soundness and Completeness) Let Σ Form(L pred ) and A Form(L pred ). Then Σ = A if and only if Σ A. The theorem states that the formal natural deduction system for first-order logic is sound (Σ A implies Σ = A) and complete (Σ = A implies Σ A). For its interpretation see the comments following its counterpart for propositional logic. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 13 / 42

Comments on Universal Instantiation, ( ) From xp(x) we should be able to derive P(t) for any term t. For instance, if P(x) stands for x is sleeping, then xp(x) means Everyone is sleeping, and from this we should be able to derive, say, that Michael is sleeping. More formally, ( ) : If Σ xa(x), then Σ A(t) for any term t. Note: t can be an individual, a free variable or a function of some other terms. Beware of variable clashes. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 14 / 42

Example of using ( ) From the premises All human beings are mortal. Socrates is a human being. prove that Socrates is mortal. Let H(x) indicate that x is human and M(x) that x is mortal. Furthermore, let S stand for Socrates. Then, we have to prove that: x(h(x) M(x)), H(S) M(S). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 15 / 42

Denote Σ = { x(h(x) M(x)), H(S)}. Then, 1. Σ x(h(x) M(x)) ( ) 2. Σ H(S) M(S) 1, ( ) 3. Σ H(S) ( ) 4. Σ M(S) 2, 3, ( ) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 16 / 42

Semantic interpretation: 1. All humans are mortal. 2. If Socrates is human then he is mortal. 3. Socrates is human. 4. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 17 / 42

Comments of Universal Generalization ( +) ( +) If Σ A(u), u not ocurring in Σ as a free variable, then Σ xa(x). In other words, if u does not appear as a free variable in any premise, one can generalize over u. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 18 / 42

If u would appear free in any premise, then u would always refer to the same individual, and is fixed in this sense. For example, if P(u) appears in a premise, then P(u) is only true for u and not necessarily true for any other individual. If u is fixed, one cannot generalize over u. Generalizations from one particular individual towards the entire population are unsound. If, one the other hand, u does not appear in any premise as a free variable, then u is assumed to stand for anyone, and universal generalization may be applied without restriction. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 19 / 42

Example of using ( +) Consider a problem whose domain is the set of all students in this class. Assume that all students in this class are computer science students, and that computer science students like programming. Prove by formal deduction that all students in this class like programming. If P(x) and Q(x) stand for x is a computer science student and x likes programming, respectively, the premises become: The desired conclusion is xq(x). xp(x), x(p(x) Q(x)). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 20 / 42

If Σ = { xp(x), x(p(x) Q(x))} then 1. Σ xp(x) ( ) 2. Σ x(p(x) Q(x)) ( ) 3. Σ P(u) 1, ( ) 4. Σ P(u) Q(u) 2, ( ) 5. Σ Q(u) 3, 4, ( ) 6. Σ xq(x) 5, ( +), u does not occur in Σ Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 21 / 42

Semantic interpretation: 1. Everyone student in this class is a CS student. 2. CS students like programming. 3. u is a CS student. 4. If u is a CS student then he/she likes programming. 5. u likes programming 6. Every CS student in this class likes programming. The generalization in line 6 is possible only because u does not appear in any of the premises as a free variable. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 22 / 42

Comments on Existential Generalization ( +) If Aunt Cordelia is 100 years old, then there is obviously someone, that is, Aunt Cordelia, who is over 100. If there is any term t for which P(t) holds, then one can conclude that some x satisfies P(x). Formally, ( +) If Σ A(t) then Σ xa(x) where A(x) results by replacing some (not necessarily all) occurrences of t by x. This rule of inference is sometimes called existential generalization. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 23 / 42

Example of using ( +) The following example demontrates how to use existential generalization within a formal proof. The premises of our derivation are 1. Everybody who has won a million is rich. 2. Mary has won a million. We want to show that the two statements formally imply that 3. There is somebody who is rich. If the domain is the set of all people, and we denote by W (x) the statement x has won a million, R(x) that x is rich and M stands for Mary, then we have to prove that x(w (x) R(x)), W (M) xr(x). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 24 / 42

Let Σ = { x(w (x) R(x)), W (M)}. 1. Σ x(w (x) R(x)) ( ) 2. Σ W (M) R(M) 1, ( ) 3. Σ W (M) ( ) 4. Σ R(M) 2, 3, ( ) 5. Σ xr(x) 4, ( +) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 25 / 42

Semantic interpretation: 1. Everybody who has won a million is rich. 2. Hence, if Mary has won a million, she is rich. 3. Mary has won a million. 4. Consequently, Mary is rich. 5. Somebody (Mary) is rich. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 26 / 42

Comments on Existential Instantiation ( ) ( ) If Σ, A(u) B, u not occurring in Σ or B as a free variable, then Σ, xa(x) B. Suppose there is someone who has won a million dollars, and we want to prove that there is someone who is rich. Hence, the premises are 1. Someone has won a million dollars. 2. Everybody who has won a million dollars is rich. We want to show that these statements imply 3. There is someone who is rich. If the domain is the set of all people and we use the notations from the previous example, we have to prove that xw (x), x(w (x) R(x)) xr(x). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 27 / 42

Example contd. Denote by Σ = { x(w (x) R(x))}. 1. Σ, W (u) x(w (x) R(x)) ( ) 2. Σ, W (u) W (u) R(u) 1, ( ) 3. Σ, W (u) W (u) ( ) 4. Σ, W (u) R(u) 2, 3, ( ) 5. Σ, W (u) xr(x) 4, ( +) 6. Σ, xw (x) xr(x) 5, ( ) u does not occur elsewhere Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 28 / 42

Semantic interpretation: We first change our premises to Everybody who has won a million is rich, and u has won a million dollars. Then, 1. Everybody who has won a million is rich. 2. If u has won a million then he is rich. 3. u has won a million. 4. Therefore, u is rich. 5. Under these assumptions (that u has won a million), there is somebody who is rich. 6. As someone has won a million dollars, our assumptions are valid, therefore there is somebody who is rich. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 29 / 42

Remarks ( ) is called existential instantiation because, instead of the premise There is somebody who has won a million dollars we could use the instance u has won a million dollars, even though we did not know who the particular u that made xw (x) true was. Then we could carry on with the proof, and replace in the end W (u) by xw (x). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 30 / 42

Remarks contd. Special attention has to be paid to the following condition: For W (u) to be replaced by xw (x), u must appear neither in the premises nor in the conclusion. In particular, Steps 5, 6 could not be interchanged. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 31 / 42

How to apply ( +) in predicate calculus Let S(x) stand for x studied and P(x) stand for x passed. The premise is that everyone who studied passed. Prove that everyone who did not pass did not study. Translation: x(s(x) P(x)) x[ P(x) S(x)] Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 32 / 42

Denote Σ = { x(s(x) P(x)}. 1. Σ x(s(x) P(x)) ( ) 2. Σ S(u) P(u) 1, ( ) 3. Σ P(u) S(u) 2, contrapositive 4. Σ x( P(x) S(x)) 3, ( +), u not in Σ Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 33 / 42

Semantic interpretation: 1. Everyone who studied passed. 2. If u studied, he passed. 3. If u did not pass then he cannot have studied. 4. Everyone who did not pass cannot have studied. Note that the generalization in line 7 is only possible because u does not occur free in any premise. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 34 / 42

Exercises 1. Prove by formal deduction that Paul is the son of John from the following premises: John is the father of Paul. Paul is not the daughter of John. A child is either a son or a daughter. Use the following predicates: F (x, y) : x is the father of y. S(x, y): x is the son of y. D(x, y): x is the daughter of y. Use J for John and P for Paul. The domain is the set of all people. Hint: the formal proof uses the disjunctive syllogism (A B, A B) and ( ), universal instantiation. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 35 / 42

Exercises 2. Prove by using formal deduction that: x yp(x, y) y xp(x, y). (validity of interchanging universal quantifiers) Hint: Use ( +), the universal generalization. 3. Prove by using formal deduction that: xp(x) yp(y) (variable substitution) Hint: Use ( +), the universal generalization. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 36 / 42

Exercises 4. Prove by using formal deduction that: xp(x) x P(x) (negation of formulas with existential quantifier - direct implication) Hint: Use the existential generalization ( +). 5. Prove by using formal deduction that: x P(x) xp(x) (negation of formulas with existential quantifier - the converse) Hint: Use existential instantiation, ( ). Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 37 / 42

Exercises: Proving arguments valid with semantic ( =) or syntactic ( ) methods Give a semantic proof of the validity or invalidity of the following argument (using the notion of tautological consequence, =). If the argument is valid, give alsoa proof by formal deduction,. Premise 1: x(p(x) Q(x)) Premise 2: x(r(x) Q(x)) Premise 3: x(r(x) P(x) S(x)) Conclusion: x(r(x) S(x)) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 38 / 42

Exercise Give a semantic proof of the validity or invalidity of the following argument (using the notion of tautological consequence, =). If the argument is valid, give also a proof by formal deduction,. Premise 1: x y(d(x) E(y) F (x, y)) Premise 2: x y(d(x) F (x, y) G(y)) Conclusion: xd(x) x(e(x) G(x)) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 39 / 42

Translate the following argument in the language of predicate calculus and determine whether it is valid or invalid. The universe of discourse is the set of all birds. (From Lewis Caroll.) 1) All hummingbirds are richly coloured. 2) No large birds live one honey. 3) Birds that do not live on honey are dull in colour. - Hummingbirds are small. Use the following predicate symbols: H(x) - x is a hummingbird, L(x) - x is large, H(x) - x lives on honey, R(x) - x is richly coloured. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 40 / 42

Translate the following argument in the language of predicate calculus and determine whether it is valid or invalid. (From Lewis Caroll.) Only ghosts live in the haunted house. No happy ghost is intelligent. No ghost is happy. - Anyone who lives in the haunted house is either intelligent or unhappy. Use the following predicate symbols: G(x) - x is a ghost, L(x) - x lives in a haunted house, H(x) - x is happy, I (x)- x is intelligent.. The universe of discourse consists of people and ghosts. Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 41 / 42

Exercise Give a semantic proof of the validity or invalidity of the following argument (using the notion of tautological consequence, =). If the argument is valid, give also a proof by formal deduction,. Premise (1) xm(x) Premise (2) x(m(x) yc(x, y)) Premise (3) x( yc(x, y) F (x)) - Conclusion: yf (y) Formal (Natural) Deduction for Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 42 / 42