SLIDE 1
Goranko
Goranko
Logic as a Tool Chapter 2: Deductive Reasoning in Propositional - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Logic as a Tool Chapter 2: Deductive Reasoning in Propositional - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Logic as a Tool Chapter 2: Deductive Reasoning in Propositional Logic 2.4 Propositional Natural Deduction Valentin Goranko Stockholm University November 2020 Goranko Natural Deduction Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules.
SLIDE 4
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules. ◮ Introduction (opening) and cancelation ( closing, discharge) of
assumptions.
SLIDE 5
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules. ◮ Introduction (opening) and cancelation ( closing, discharge) of
assumptions.
◮ Assumptions can be re-used many times before canceled.
SLIDE 6
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules. ◮ Introduction (opening) and cancelation ( closing, discharge) of
assumptions.
◮ Assumptions can be re-used many times before canceled. ◮ Cancelation of assumptions: only when the rules allow it, but not an
- bligation.
SLIDE 7
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules. ◮ Introduction (opening) and cancelation ( closing, discharge) of
assumptions.
◮ Assumptions can be re-used many times before canceled. ◮ Cancelation of assumptions: only when the rules allow it, but not an
- bligation.
◮ All open assumptions at the end of the derivation must be declared.
SLIDE 8
Goranko
Natural Deduction
◮ Natural Deduction (ND): System for structured logical derivation
from a set of assumptions, based on rules, specific to the logical connectives.
◮ For each logical connective: introduction rules and elimination rules. ◮ Introduction (opening) and cancelation ( closing, discharge) of
assumptions.
◮ Assumptions can be re-used many times before canceled. ◮ Cancelation of assumptions: only when the rules allow it, but not an
- bligation.
◮ All open assumptions at the end of the derivation must be declared.
NB: the fewer (or, weaker) are the assumptions, the stronger is the claim of the derivation.
SLIDE 9
Goranko
ND rules for the propositional connectives
Introduction rules: Elimination rules:
SLIDE 10
Goranko
ND rules for the propositional connectives
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (∧I) A, B A ∧ B
SLIDE 11
Goranko
ND rules for the propositional connectives
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (∧I) A, B A ∧ B (∧E) A ∧ B A A ∧ B B
SLIDE 12
Goranko
ND rules for the propositional connectives
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (∧I) A, B A ∧ B (∨I) A A ∨ B B A ∨ B (∧E) A ∧ B A A ∧ B B
SLIDE 13
Goranko
ND rules for the propositional connectives
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (∧I) A, B A ∧ B (∨I) A A ∨ B B A ∨ B (∧E) A ∧ B A A ∧ B B (∨E) A ∨ B [A] . . . C [B] . . . C C
SLIDE 14
Goranko
Introduction rules: Elimination rules:
SLIDE 15
Goranko
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (→ I) [A] . . . B A → B
SLIDE 16
Goranko
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (→ I) [A] . . . B A → B (→ E) A, A → B B
SLIDE 17
Goranko
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (→ I) [A] . . . B A → B (¬I) [A] . . . ⊥ ¬A (→ E) A, A → B B
SLIDE 18
Goranko
Introduction rules: Elimination rules: (→ I) [A] . . . B A → B (¬I) [A] . . . ⊥ ¬A (→ E) A, A → B B (¬E) A, ¬A ⊥
SLIDE 19
Goranko
Two more ND rules
Ex falso quodlibet: Reductio ad absurdum:
SLIDE 20
Goranko
Two more ND rules
Ex falso quodlibet: Reductio ad absurdum: (⊥) ⊥ A
SLIDE 21
Goranko
Two more ND rules
Ex falso quodlibet: Reductio ad absurdum: (⊥) ⊥ A (RA) [¬A] . . . ⊥ A
SLIDE 22
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
SLIDE 23
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A :
SLIDE 24
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A : A ∧ B
SLIDE 25
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A : (∧E) A ∧ B B
SLIDE 26
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A : (∧E) A ∧ B B A ∧ B
SLIDE 27
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A : (∧E) A ∧ B B (∧E) A ∧ B A
SLIDE 28
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Example 1
A ∧ B ⊢ND B ∧ A : (∧I) (∧E) A ∧ B B (∧E) A ∧ B A B ∧ A
SLIDE 29
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A :
SLIDE 30
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : A
SLIDE 31
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : A ¬A
SLIDE 32
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A :
(¬E)
A ¬A ⊥
SLIDE 33
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : (¬I)
(¬E)
A ¬A ⊥ ¬¬A
SLIDE 34
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : (¬I)
(¬E)
A [¬A]1 ⊥ ¬¬A 1
SLIDE 35
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : (→ I) (¬I)
(¬E)
A [¬A]1 ⊥ ¬¬A 1 A → ¬¬A
SLIDE 36
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 2
⊢ND A → ¬¬A : (→ I) (¬I)
(¬E) [A]2, [¬A]1
⊥ ¬¬A 1 A → ¬¬A 2
SLIDE 37
Goranko
Exercise:
⊢ND ¬¬A → A
SLIDE 38
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A :
SLIDE 39
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : A → B
SLIDE 40
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : A , A → B
SLIDE 41
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : A , A → B B
SLIDE 42
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : A , A → B B , ¬B
SLIDE 43
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : A , A → B B , ¬B ⊥
SLIDE 44
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : [A]1, A → B B , ¬B ⊥ ¬A 1
SLIDE 45
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : [A]1, A → B B , [¬B]2 ⊥ ¬A ¬B → ¬A
2
1
SLIDE 46
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : [A]1, A → B B , [¬B]2 ⊥ ¬A ¬B → ¬A
2
1 ¬B → ¬A ⊢ND A → B :
SLIDE 47
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 3
A → B ⊢ND ¬B → ¬A : [A]1, A → B B , [¬B]2 ⊥ ¬A ¬B → ¬A
2
1 ¬B → ¬A ⊢ND A → B : [¬B]1, ¬B → ¬A [¬A] , [A]2 ⊥
(→I)
B A → B
2
1
SLIDE 48
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B :
SLIDE 49
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B
SLIDE 50
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B A
SLIDE 51
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B ¬A , A
SLIDE 52
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B ¬A , A ⊥
SLIDE 53
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B ¬A , A ⊥ B
SLIDE 54
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B [¬A]1, A ⊥ B ¬A → B 1
SLIDE 55
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B [¬A]1, A ⊥ B ¬A → B 1 B
SLIDE 56
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B [¬A]1, A ⊥ B ¬A → B 1 ¬A B
SLIDE 57
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B [¬A]1, A ⊥ B ¬A → B 1 [¬A]2, B ¬A → B 2
SLIDE 58
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 4
A ∨ B ⊢ND ¬A → B : A ∨ B [¬A]1, [A]3 ⊥ B ¬A → B 1 [¬A]2, [B]3 ¬A → B 2 ¬A → B 3
SLIDE 59
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 5
SLIDE 60
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 5
⊢ND (A → (B → C)) → ((A ∧ B) → C) :
SLIDE 61
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: Examples 5
⊢ND (A → (B → C)) → ((A ∧ B) → C) : (→ E) (∧E) [A ∧ B]1 B (→ E)
(∧E) [A ∧ B]1
A
,
[A → (B → C)]2 B → C (→ I)
(→I)
C (A ∧ B) → C
1
(A → (B → C)) → ((A ∧ B) → C) 2
SLIDE 62
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: a challenge
Derive in ND the formula:
SLIDE 63
Goranko
Propositional Natural Deduction: a challenge
Derive in ND the formula: p ∨ ¬p
SLIDE 64
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: an intuitive definition
SLIDE 65
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: an intuitive definition
Intuitively, a derivation in ND is a finite tree-like object D, such that
SLIDE 66
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: an intuitive definition
Intuitively, a derivation in ND is a finite tree-like object D, such that
◮ the leaves of D are labelled by assumptions (premises);
these may be open, or cancelled during the derivation.
SLIDE 67
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: an intuitive definition
Intuitively, a derivation in ND is a finite tree-like object D, such that
◮ the leaves of D are labelled by assumptions (premises);
these may be open, or cancelled during the derivation.
◮ every internal node of D is labelled by a formula which is the
conclusion of an instance of some ND rule, applied to the formulae labelling its children nodes;
SLIDE 68
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: an intuitive definition
Intuitively, a derivation in ND is a finite tree-like object D, such that
◮ the leaves of D are labelled by assumptions (premises);
these may be open, or cancelled during the derivation.
◮ every internal node of D is labelled by a formula which is the
conclusion of an instance of some ND rule, applied to the formulae labelling its children nodes;
◮ the root of D is labelled by the derived formula (conclusion) of D.
SLIDE 69
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition
SLIDE 70
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition
Formally, a derivation in ND is a (tree-like) object of the type D
A where
the set DND of such derivations, as well as the set of open assumptions of each derivation D
A , denoted by O
D
A
- , are defined inductively as follows:
SLIDE 71
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition
Formally, a derivation in ND is a (tree-like) object of the type D
A where
the set DND of such derivations, as well as the set of open assumptions of each derivation D
A , denoted by O
D
A
- , are defined inductively as follows:
(D1) For every propositional formula A, the object A A belongs to DND and its set of open assumptions is O A
A
- = {A}.
SLIDE 72
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition
Formally, a derivation in ND is a (tree-like) object of the type D
A where
the set DND of such derivations, as well as the set of open assumptions of each derivation D
A , denoted by O
D
A
- , are defined inductively as follows:
(D1) For every propositional formula A, the object A A belongs to DND and its set of open assumptions is O A
A
- = {A}.
(D2) If D
A is in DND and B is any propositional formula, then
D, B A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, B
A
- = O
D
A
- ∪ {B}.
SLIDE 73
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
SLIDE 74
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(∧I) If D
A and D′ B are in DND then D A D′ B
A ∧ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- ∪ O
- D′
B
- .
SLIDE 75
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(∧I) If D
A and D′ B are in DND then D A D′ B
A ∧ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- ∪ O
- D′
B
- .
(∧E) If
D A∧B is in DND then D A∧B
A and
D A∧B
B are in DND and the set of open assumptions of each is O
- D
A∧B
- .
SLIDE 76
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
SLIDE 77
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(∨lI) If D
A is in DND then D A
A ∨ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- .
SLIDE 78
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(∨lI) If D
A is in DND then D A
A ∨ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- .
(∨rI) If D
B is in DND then D B
A ∨ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
B
- .
SLIDE 79
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(∨lI) If D
A is in DND then D A
A ∨ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- .
(∨rI) If D
B is in DND then D B
A ∨ B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
B
- .
(∨E) If
D A∨B , D, A C
and D, B
C
are in DND then
D A∨B D, [A] C D, [B] C
C is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D
A∨B
- ∪
- O
- D, A
C
- \ {A}
- ∪
- O
- D, B
C
- \ {B}
- .
SLIDE 80
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
SLIDE 81
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(→I) If D, A
B
is in DND then
D, [A] B
A → B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, A
B
- \ {A}.
SLIDE 82
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(→I) If D, A
B
is in DND then
D, [A] B
A → B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, A
B
- \ {A}.
(→E) If D
A and D′ A→B are in DND then D A D′ A→B
B is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- ∪ O
- D′
A→B
- .
SLIDE 83
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
SLIDE 84
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(¬I) If D, A
⊥
is in DND then
D, [A] ⊥
¬A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, A
⊥
- \ {A}.
SLIDE 85
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition continued
(¬I) If D, A
⊥
is in DND then
D, [A] ⊥
¬A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, A
⊥
- \ {A}.
(¬E) If D
A and D′ ¬A are in DND then D A D′ ¬A
⊥ is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
A
- ∪ O
- D′
A
- .
SLIDE 86
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition completed
SLIDE 87
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition completed
(⊥) If D
⊥ is in DND then D ⊥
A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
⊥
- .
SLIDE 88
Goranko
Derivations in Natural Deduction: inductive definition completed
(⊥) If D
⊥ is in DND then D ⊥
A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O D
⊥
- .
(RA) If D, ¬A
⊥
is in DND then
D, [¬A] ⊥
A is in DND and its set of open assumptions is O
- D, ¬A
⊥
- \ {¬A}.
SLIDE 89
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
SLIDE 90
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
SLIDE 91
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
SLIDE 92
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
- Proof. For finite Γ: by structural induction on derivations in ND.
SLIDE 93
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
- Proof. For finite Γ: by structural induction on derivations in ND.
Then extend for any Γ – straightforward.
SLIDE 94
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
- Proof. For finite Γ: by structural induction on derivations in ND.
Then extend for any Γ – straightforward. Exercise (for now).
SLIDE 95
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
- Proof. For finite Γ: by structural induction on derivations in ND.
Then extend for any Γ – straightforward. Exercise (for now). The system of Natural Deduction ND is also complete, and hence adequate, for the logical consequence (resp. validity) of the classical propositional logic (CPL).
SLIDE 96
Goranko
Derivability from set of assumptions in Natural Deduction: definition and soundness of ND
Definition
Given a finite set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, A is derivable from the set of assumptions Γ, denoted Γ ⊢ND A iff there is a derivation D
A such that its set of open assumptions O
D
A
- is Γ.
Now, for any set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, we define Γ ⊢ND A iff Γ′ ⊢ND A for some finite set Γ′ ⊆ Γ.
Theorem (Soundness of the system of Natural Deduction ND)
For every set of propositional formulae Γ and a formula A, if Γ ⊢ND A then Γ A.
- Proof. For finite Γ: by structural induction on derivations in ND.
Then extend for any Γ – straightforward. Exercise (for now). The system of Natural Deduction ND is also complete, and hence adequate, for the logical consequence (resp. validity) of the classical propositional logic (CPL). Sketch of the proof will be presented later.
SLIDE 97
Goranko
Constructive derivations and intuitionistic propositional logic
SLIDE 98
Goranko
Constructive derivations and intuitionistic propositional logic
A Natural Deduction derivation in propositional logic is constructive if it does not use the rule Reductio ad absurdum.
SLIDE 99
Goranko
Constructive derivations and intuitionistic propositional logic
A Natural Deduction derivation in propositional logic is constructive if it does not use the rule Reductio ad absurdum. Respectively, the inductive definition of constructive derivations does not involve the clause (RA).
SLIDE 100
Goranko