|
System L
System L is a natural deductive logic developed by E.J. Lemmon.See for an introductory presentation of Lemmon's natural deduction system. Derived from Suppes' method,See , for an introductory presentation of Suppes' natural deduction system. it represents natural deduction proofs as sequences of justified steps. Both methods are derived from Gentzen's 1934/1935 natural deduction system, in which proofs were presented in tree-diagram form rather than in the tabular form of Suppes and Lemmon. Although the tree-diagram layout has advantages for philosophical and educational purposes, the tabular layout is much more convenient for practical applications. A similar tabular layout is presented by Kleene. The main difference is that Kleene does not abbreviate the left-hand sides of assertions to line numbers, preferring instead to either give full lists of precedent propositions or alternatively indicate the left-hand sides by bars running down the left of the table to indicate depende ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Natural Deductive Logic
In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning. Motivation Natural deduction grew out of a context of dissatisfaction with the axiomatizations of deductive reasoning common to the systems of David Hilbert, Hilbert, Gottlob Frege, Frege, and Bertrand Russell, Russell (see, e.g., Hilbert system). Such axiomatizations were most famously used by Bertrand Russell, Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, Whitehead in their mathematical treatise ''Principia Mathematica''. Spurred on by a series of seminars in Poland in 1926 by Jan Lukasiewicz, Łukasiewicz that advocated a more natural treatment of logic, Stanisław Jaśkowski, Jaśkowski made the earliest attempts at defining a more natural deduction, first in 1929 using ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Substitution (logic)
Substitution is a fundamental concept in logic. A substitution is a syntactic transformation on formal expressions. To apply a substitution to an expression means to consistently replace its variable, or placeholder, symbols by other expressions. The resulting expression is called a substitution instance, or instance for short, of the original expression. Propositional logic Definition Where ''ψ'' and ''φ'' represent formulas of propositional logic, ''ψ'' is a substitution instance of ''φ'' if and only if ''ψ'' may be obtained from ''φ'' by substituting formulas for symbols in ''φ'', replacing each occurrence of the same symbol by an occurrence of the same formula. For example: ::(R → S) & (T → S) is a substitution instance of: ::P & Q and ::(A ↔ A) ↔ (A ↔ A) is a substitution instance of: ::(A ↔ A) In some deduction systems for propositional logic, a new expression (a proposition) may be entered on a line of a derivation if it is a substitution instanc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sequent Calculus
In mathematical logic, sequent calculus is a style of formal logical argumentation in which every line of a proof is a conditional tautology (called a sequent by Gerhard Gentzen) instead of an unconditional tautology. Each conditional tautology is inferred from other conditional tautologies on earlier lines in a formal argument according to rules and procedures of inference, giving a better approximation to the natural style of deduction used by mathematicians than to David Hilbert's earlier style of formal logic, in which every line was an unconditional tautology. More subtle distinctions may exist; for example, propositions may implicitly depend upon non-logical axioms. In that case, sequents signify conditional theorems in a first-order language rather than conditional tautologies. Sequent calculus is one of several extant styles of proof calculus for expressing line-by-line logical arguments. * Hilbert style. Every line is an unconditional tautology (or theorem). * Gentzen s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Natural Deduction
In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning. Motivation Natural deduction grew out of a context of dissatisfaction with the axiomatizations of deductive reasoning common to the systems of Hilbert, Frege, and Russell (see, e.g., Hilbert system). Such axiomatizations were most famously used by Russell and Whitehead in their mathematical treatise ''Principia Mathematica''. Spurred on by a series of seminars in Poland in 1926 by Łukasiewicz that advocated a more natural treatment of logic, Jaśkowski made the earliest attempts at defining a more natural deduction, first in 1929 using a diagrammatic notation, and later updating his proposal in a sequence of papers in 1934 and 1935. His proposals led to diffe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Principle Of Explosion
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (, 'from falsehood, anything ollows; or ), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion. The proof of this principle was first given by 12th-century French philosopher William of Soissons. Priest, Graham. 2011. "What's so bad about contradictions?" In ''The Law of Non-Contradicton'', edited by Priest, Beal, and Armour-Garb. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 25. Due to the principle of explosion, the existence of a contradiction ( inconsistency) in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any statement can be proven, it trivializes the concepts of truth and falsity. Around the turn of the 20th century, the discovery of contradictions such as Russell's parado ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reductio Ad Absurdum
In logic, (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or ''apagogical arguments'', is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This argument form traces back to Ancient Greek philosophy and has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate. Examples The "absurd" conclusion of a ''reductio ad absurdum'' argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show: * The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, since Earth assumed to be finite in extent, we would find people falling off the edge. * There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one. The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Monotonicity Of Entailment
Monotonicity of entailment is a property of many logical systems that states that the hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions. In sequent calculi this property can be captured by an inference rule called weakening, or sometimes thinning, and in such systems one may say that entailment is monotone if and only if the rule is admissible. Logical systems with this property are occasionally called ''monotonic logics'' in order to differentiate them from non-monotonic logics. Weakening rule To illustrate, consider the natural deduction sequent: Γ \vdash C That is, on the basis of a list of assumptions Γ, one can prove C. Weakening, by adding an assumption A, allows one to conclude: Γ, A \vdash C For example, the syllogism "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." can be weakened by adding a premise: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Cows produce milk. Therefore Socrates is mortal." The validity of th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Modus Ponendo Ponens
In propositional calculus, propositional logic, ''modus ponens'' (; MP), also known as ''modus ponendo wiktionary:ponens, ponens'' (Latin for "method of putting by placing") or implication elimination or affirming the antecedent, is a Deductive reasoning, deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "''P material conditional, implies Q.'' ''P'' is true. Therefore ''Q'' must also be true." ''Modus ponens'' is closely related to another Validity (logic), valid form of argument, ''modus tollens''. Both have apparently similar but invalid forms such as affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, and evidence of absence. Constructive dilemma is the Logical disjunction, disjunctive version of ''modus ponens''. Hypothetical syllogism is closely related to ''modus ponens'' and sometimes thought of as "double ''modus ponens''." The history of ''modus ponens'' goes back to Classical antiquity, antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Modus Tollens
In propositional logic, ''modus tollens'' () (MT), also known as ''modus tollendo tollens'' (Latin for "method of removing by taking away") and denying the consequent, is a deductive argument form and a rule of inference. ''Modus tollens'' takes the form of "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contrapositive. The form shows that inference from ''P implies Q'' to ''the negation of Q implies the negation of P'' is a valid argument. The history of the inference rule ''modus tollens'' goes back to antiquity. The first to explicitly describe the argument form ''modus tollens'' was Theophrastus. ''Modus tollens'' is closely related to '' modus ponens''. There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. See also contraposition and proof by contrapositive. Explanation The form of a ''modus tollens'' argument resembles a syllog ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
John Lemmon
Edward John Lemmon (1 June 1930 – 29 July 1966) was a British logician and philosopher born in Sheffield, England. He is most well known for his work on modal logic, particularly his joint text with Dana Scott published posthumously (Lemmon and Scott, 1977). Biography Lemmon attended King Edward VII School in Sheffield until 1947, before reading Literae humaniores at , as an undergraduate, and was appointed Fellow of |
Sequent
In mathematical logic, a sequent is a very general kind of conditional assertion. : A_1,\,\dots,A_m \,\vdash\, B_1,\,\dots,B_n. A sequent may have any number ''m'' of condition formulas ''Ai'' (called " antecedents") and any number ''n'' of asserted formulas ''Bj'' (called "succedents" or "consequents"). A sequent is understood to mean that if all of the antecedent conditions are true, then at least one of the consequent formulas is true. This style of conditional assertion is almost always associated with the conceptual framework of sequent calculus. Introduction The form and semantics of sequents Sequents are best understood in the context of the following three kinds of logical judgments: Unconditional assertion. No antecedent formulas. * Example: ⊢ ''B'' * Meaning: ''B'' is true. Conditional assertion. Any number of antecedent formulas. Simple conditional assertion. Single consequent formula. * Example: ''A1'', ''A2'', ''A3'' ⊢ ''B'' * Meaning: IF ''A1'' AND ''A ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Well-formed Formula
In mathematical logic, propositional logic and predicate logic, a well-formed formula, abbreviated WFF or wff, often simply formula, is a finite sequence of symbols from a given alphabet that is part of a formal language. A formal language can be identified with the set of formulas in the language. A formula is a syntactic object that can be given a semantic meaning by means of an interpretation. Two key uses of formulas are in propositional logic and predicate logic. Introduction A key use of formulas is in propositional logic and predicate logic such as first-order logic. In those contexts, a formula is a string of symbols φ for which it makes sense to ask "is φ true?", once any free variables in φ have been instantiated. In formal logic, proofs can be represented by sequences of formulas with certain properties, and the final formula in the sequence is what is proven. Although the term "formula" may be used for written marks (for instance, on a piece of paper or ch ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
