more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 9536

[filed under theme 4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 4. Soundness of PL ]

Full Idea

If any application of the nine derivation rules of propositional logic is made on tautologous sequents, we have demonstrated that the result is always a tautologous sequent. Thus the system is consistent.

Gist of Idea

If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology

Source

E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.4)

Book Ref

Lemmon,E.J.: 'Beginning Logic' [Nelson 1979], p.80


A Reaction

The term 'sound' tends to be used now, rather than 'consistent'. See Lemmon for the proofs of each of the nine rules.


The 52 ideas from 'Beginning Logic'

Predicate logic uses propositional connectives and variables, plus new introduction and elimination rules [Lemmon]
The sign |- may be read as 'therefore' [Lemmon]
We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q [Lemmon]
We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as ¬ [Lemmon]
That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q [Lemmon]
That proposition that both P and Q is their 'conjunction', written P∧Q [Lemmon]
We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q; it is also P iff Q, or (P→Q)∧(Q→P) [Lemmon]
DN: Given A, we may derive ¬¬A [Lemmon]
∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately [Lemmon]
∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B [Lemmon]
MTT: Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A [Lemmon]
If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B [Lemmon]
RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧¬B, then derive ¬A [Lemmon]
CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B [Lemmon]
A: we may assume any proposition at any stage [Lemmon]
∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B [Lemmon]
∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B [Lemmon]
MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B [Lemmon]
The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets [Lemmon]
A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔ [Lemmon]
A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions [Lemmon]
We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q [Lemmon]
We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) [Lemmon]
'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says ¬P, P ∨ Q |- Q [Lemmon]
A 'substitution-instance' is a wff formed by consistent replacing variables with wffs [Lemmon]
'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q [Lemmon]
We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) [Lemmon]
The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions [Lemmon]
De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions [Lemmon]
The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q [Lemmon]
A wff is 'inconsistent' if all assignments to variables result in the value F [Lemmon]
Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value [Lemmon]
'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology [Lemmon]
'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that ¬(A∧B) is a tautology [Lemmon]
'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value [Lemmon]
A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T [Lemmon]
A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F [Lemmon]
A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous) [Lemmon]
Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity [Lemmon]
If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology [Lemmon]
Propositional logic is complete, since all of its tautologous sequents are derivable [Lemmon]
A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic [Lemmon]
Write '(∀x)(...)' to mean 'take any x: then...', and '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....' [Lemmon]
'Gm' says m has property G, and 'Pmn' says m has relation P to n [Lemmon]
Our notation uses 'predicate-letters' (for 'properties'), 'variables', 'proper names', 'connectives' and 'quantifiers' [Lemmon]
'Some Frenchmen are generous' is rendered by (∃x)(Fx→Gx), and not with the conditional → [Lemmon]
If there is a finite domain and all objects have names, complex conjunctions can replace universal quantifiers [Lemmon]
Universal Elimination (UE) lets us infer that an object has F, from all things having F [Lemmon]
Universal elimination if you start with the universal, introduction if you want to end with it [Lemmon]
With finite named objects, we can generalise with &-Intro, but otherwise we need ∀-Intro [Lemmon]
UE all-to-one; UI one-to-all; EI arbitrary-to-one; EE proof-to-one [Lemmon]
The 'symbols' are bracket, connective, term, variable, predicate letter, reverse-E [Lemmon]