Professional Documents
Culture Documents
axiomaticPC PDF
axiomaticPC PDF
February 8, 2013
1
1.1
The Syntax
The Alphabet
(a) A countable set PV of Propositional Variables (or letters) p1 , p2 , ... (b) Logical Connectives , (c) Parantheses (,)
1.2
Denition 1.1. The set F of ws is the smallest set of strings (nite sequences of symbols) over the alphabet given above, such that (a) any propositional variable is a w (i.e. a member of F ), called an atomic w, (b) if is a w, so is , (c) if , are ws, is also a w. Proposition 1.1. The set F of all ws of P C is countable. Proof. (Hint:) The Alphabet of P C could be taken to be nite and with an order: say as {, , (, ), p, }. Then generate the set of all strings over this 1
1.3
Axioms
A1 ( ) A2 ( ( )) (( ) ( )) A3 ( ) ( )
1.4
Rule of Inference
Modus Ponens (M P )
1.5
Let be any set of ws and any w in P C . Denition 1.2. if and only if there is a sequence 1 , ..., n (:= ) such that each i (i = 1, ..., n) is either (i) an axiom, or (ii) a member of , or (iii) derived from some of 1 , ..., i1 by M P . Denition 1.3. If is empty in the above, we write , and say that is a theorem, the sequence 1 , ..., n (:= ) constituting a proof of . Proposition 1.2. satises the following properties: 2
(a) Overlap: if , then (b) Dilution: if and (c) Cut: if (d) Compactness: If .
, , then , , then .
The proof is by induction on the number of steps of derivation of from {}. Let 2 denote that there is some w such that and .
Proposition 1.4. (a) (Converse of Deduction Theorem) If (c) If (e) (f ) (g) (i) (j) 2, then , for every w . . then {} . .
( ) .
(h) If {}
(k) { } (l) {}
Proposition 1.5. Consider P C with axiom A3 replaced by the two axioms A3 ( ), A3 ( ) . A3 can be derived as a theorem in this new system.
2
2.1
The Semantics
The Semantic Consequence relation |=
Recall that a valuation v is a map from the set PV of propositional variables to {T, F }. It is extended to the set F of all ws of P C using the denitions of , on {T, F } (i.e. the truth tables). Denition 2.1. A set of ws is said to be satised by a valuation v , if and only if for every , v ( ) = T (in brief, v () = T ). In this case, v is also called a model of . Denition 2.2. |= if and only if every model of is a model of . If is empty, is said to be valid, written |= . Remark. |= , provided every v satises , i.e. is a tautology. Theorem 2.1. (Soundness) If then |= .
The proof is by induction on the number of steps of derivation of from . In essence, one shows that (i) the axioms are valid, and (ii) M P preserves truth.
3
3.1
Consistency
Negation Consistency
2.
3.2
Absolute Consistency
Denition 3.2. is said to be absolutely consistent if and only if there is some w such that . Proposition 3.1. In P C , a set of ws is negation consistent if and only if it is absolutely consistent. 4
Henceforth, consistency in P C , would mean any of the equivalent notions of negation and absolute consistency. Proposition 3.2. The set of theorems of P C is consistent. Proposition 3.3. If has a model, it is consistent.
Completeness
.
In order to prove the theorem, we must rst establish the following. Theorem 4.2. If is consistent, it has a model. For then, we would have the proof of Theorem 4.1 as follows. Proof. (Completeness) Let |= , and suppose that . By Proposition 1.4 (d), {} 2, i.e. {} is consistent. By Theorem 4.2, {} has a model, say v . So v is a model for , but v () = T , i.e. v () = F . Hence |= , which is a contradiction to our assumption. To arrive at Theorem 4.2, we need the notion of maximal consistency, and two propositions.
4.1
Maximal Consistency
Denition 4.1. A set of ws is maximally consistent, if and only if (i) it is consistent, and (ii) {} is inconsistent, whenever . Proposition 4.3. Let be maximally consistent, , any ws. (a) , if and only if .
(d) if and only if and . (e) if and only if or . Proposition 4.4. If is consistent, it has a maximally consistent extension. Proof. The set F of all ws of P C is countable (cf. Proposition 1.1). Let o , 1 , ... be an enumeration of all the ws. We construct, recursively, an ascending chain of sets i , i = 0, 1, 2, ... of ws as follows. (a) 0 is ; (b) For any i 0, i+1 is i {i }, if i {i } is consistent. Otherwise, i+1 is i . Clearly (i) 0 1 2 ... i ..., and (ii) for each i, i is consistent. Let := i i . We show that is the required maximally consistent extension of . (i) . (ii) is consistent: Suppose not. Then there is a w with and . By compactness of (Proposition 1.2 (d)), there are nite subsets 1 , 2 of such that 1 and 2 . One can nd i 0, such that 1 , 2 i . So i and i (using dilution) a contradiction to the consistency of i . (iii) is maximally consistent: Suppose . is k , for some k 0. Take k {k }. If it were consistent, := k k {k } := k+1 , a contradiction. So k {k } 2. Then by dilution, {k } 2. Proposition 4.5. If is maximally consistent, it has a model. Proof. Let be maximally consistent. Dene v0 , the canonical valuation, as follows. For any propositional variable p, v0 (p) = T if and only if p . We show that v0 () = T if and only if , for any w . ...(*) The proof is by induction on the number n of occurrences of connectives in the w . Basis. n = 0. is a propositional variable: By denition of v0 . Induction Hypothesis. Let the property (*) of v hold for any having less 6
than n occurrences of connectives. Induction Step. Let have exactly n occurrences of connectives. (i) := , for some w : v0 () = v0 ( ) := v0 ( ) = T if and only if v0 ( ) = F , i.e. if and only if , by induction hypothesis applied on . But if and only if := , being maximally consistent (Proposition 4.3). (ii) := , for some ws , : As in (i), use the denition of extension of valuations to the set F of all ws, and Proposition 4.3. Theorem 4.2 is then clearly a consequence of Propositions 4.4 and 4.5. (Note that if , a model for is also a model for .) Note. Take := {q p}. It is consistent, but not maximally so. Observe that v0 dened on as in Proposition 4.5, does not satisfy . However, v0 dened on a maximally consistent extension of obtained by the construction in the proof of Proposition 4.4, satises , and therefore, .