Lec04 Natded

Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction
Logica
Dipartimento di Informatica
Università di Verona
Alessandra Di Pierro
Margherita Zorzi
Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 An abstract example
3 Derivation rules
4 Some examples of derivation
5 Derivations

Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
3 Derivation rules
5 Derivations

Introduction
Where are we
Propositional logic
Syntax and semantics.
Deductive systems (natural deduction).
Soundness and completeness.
Functional completeness.

Introduction
Natural Deduction
Up to now, we have adopted the view that propositional logic is
based on truth tables, i.e. we have looked at logic from a
semantical point of view.
This, however, is not the only possible point of view.
If one thinks of logic as a codification of (exact) reasoning, then it
should stay close to the practice of inference making, instead of
basing itself on the notion of truth.
We will now explore the non-semantic approach, by setting up a
system for deriving conclusions from premises.
Although this approach is of a formal nature, i.e. it abstains from
interpreting the statements and rules, it is advisable to keep some
interpretation in mind.
We are going to introduce a number of derivation rules, which are,
in a way, the atomic steps in a derivation.
Introduction
Natural Deduction: natural logical arguments

Developed by Gentzen (1935) and Prawitz (1965).
Designed to support “natural” logical arguments:
we make temporary assumptions;
we derive new formulas by applying rules;
there is also a mechanism for discharging assumptions.
Derivations are trees
φ → (ψ → σ) φ
→E
ψ→σ ψ
σ →E
where the leaves are called assumptions (hypotheses).

A proof is a derivation with no (open) assumptions.
Write φ1 , . . . , φn ⊢ φ if there exists a derivation of φ with
assumptions φ1 , . . . , φn , e.g. φ → (ψ → σ), φ, ψ ⊢ σ
An abstract example
Outline
1 Introduction
3 Derivation rules
5 Derivations

An abstract example
Natural Deduction: an abstract example
Language L = {r, q, ♣, ♠}
Deduction system given by rules of proof:
q α q β ♣ ♠ γ
♣ ♠ r
How do you read/apply these rules?

N.B.: α, β, γ, δ just name the rules.

An abstract example
Natural Deduction: an abstract example
Language L = {r, q, ♣, ♠}
Deduction system given by rules of proof:
[q]
..
..
q α q β ♣ ♠ γ r
♣ ♠ r r δ
How do you read/apply these rules?

N.B.: α, β, γ, δ just name the rules.

An abstract example
Proof of r
The rules:
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
The proof:
q
We make an assumption. The assumption is now open.

An abstract example
Proof of r
The rules:
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
The proof:
q α
♣
We apply α.

An abstract example
Proof of r
The rules:
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
The proof:
q α q β
♣ ♠
Similarly with β.

An abstract example
Proof of r
The rules:
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
The proof:
q α q β
♣ ♠ γ
r
We apply γ.

An abstract example
Proof of r
The rules:
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
The proof:
[q]1 [q]1
α β
♣ ♠ γ
r 1
r δ
We apply δ, discharging two occurrences of q.
We mark the brackets and the rule with a label, so that it is clear
which assumption is discharged in which step.
The derivation is now a proof: it has no open assumptions (all
discharged).
An abstract example
Why is this example abstract?
Natural Deduction is not just about propositional logic!

We explain here the general principles of Natural Deduction, not
just the application to propositional logic.
In order to emphasize that applying Natural Deduction is a
completely mechanical process, we gave an example that is void
of any intuition.
It is important that you understand this process.
Applying rules mechanically is one thing.
Understanding why this process is semantically justified is another.

An abstract example
How to read these rules
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
α reads: if at some root of a tree in the forest you have constructed so
far, there is a q, then you are allowed to draw a line underneath
that q and write ♣ underneath that line.
β reads: similar to α.

An abstract example
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
α reads: if at some root of a tree in the forest you have constructed so
far, there is a q, then you are allowed to draw a line underneath
that q and write ♣ underneath that line.
β reads: similar to α.
γ reads: if the forest you have constructed so far contains two
neighboring trees, where the left tree has root ♣ and the right tree
has root ♠, then you are allowed to draw a line underneath those
two roots and write r underneath that line.

An abstract example
[q]
..
..
♣ ♠ r r δ
δ reads: if at some root of a tree in the forest you have constructed so
far, there is a r, then you are allowed to draw a line underneath
that r and write r underneath that line.
Moreover, you are allowed to discharge (cancel, eliminate, close)
0 or more occurrences of q at the leaves of a tree.
Marked by writing [ and ] around discharged formula.
Note that, generally, the tree may contain assumptions other
than q at the leaves.
However, these must not be discharged in this rule
application: they will remain open until they might be
discharged by some other rule application later.
An abstract example
Making assumptions
In everyday language, “making an assumption” has a connotation

of “claiming”.
This is not the case here!
By making an assumption, we are not claiming anything.
When interpreting a derivation tree, we must always consider the
open assumptions.
We must say: under the assumptions..., we derived...
It is thus unproblematic to “make” assumptions.

An abstract example
What does “open assumption” mean?
For example, all logical statements at the leaves of the proof
φ → (ψ → σ) φ
→E
ψ→σ ψ
σ →E
are open.
For the moment, it suffices to know that when an assumption is

made, it is initially an open assumption.

Derivation rules
Outline
1 Introduction
3 Derivation rules
5 Derivations

Derivation rules
Intuitive (constructive) meaning of the connectives

Derivation rules are, in a way, the atomic steps in a derivation.
These derivations rules are designed (by Gentzen) to render the
intuitive meaning of the connectives as faithfully as possible.
The rules express the constructive meaning of the connectives.
This advantage is exploited in intuitionistic logic and not in
classical logic (which is the one we are considering now), but it is
good to keep it in mind.
One small example: the principle of the excluded third tells us that
|= φ ∨ ¬φ
i.e. assuming that φ is a definite mathematical statement, either it
or its negation must be true.
Now consider some unsolved problem, e.g. P = NP.
Then either P = NP is true or ¬(P = NP) is true.
However, we do not know which of the two is true, so the constructive
content of (P = NP) ∨ ¬(P = NP) is nil.
Constructively, one would require a method to find out which of the
alternatives holds.
Derivation rules
A restriction (without loss of generality)
Disjunction has a strikingly different meaning in a constructive and

in a non-constructive approach.
Hence, we restrict our language for the moment to ∧, →, and ⊥.
This is no real restriction as {→, ⊥} is a functionally complete set.
Our derivations consist of very simple steps, such as “from φ → ψ
and φ conclude ψ”, written as:
φ→ψ φ
ψ
The propositions above the line are premises, and the one below
the line is the conclusion.
This rule eliminates the connective →.
We can also introduce connectives.

Derivation rules
Introduction and elimination rules

Introduction and elimination rules for ∧:
φ ψ φ∧ψ φ∧ψ
∧I ∧Er
φ∧ψ φ ∧El ψ
Introduction and elimination rules for →:
[φ]
..
..
ψ φ→ψ φ
→I →E
φ→ψ ψ
Two rules for ⊥, both of which eliminate ⊥, but introduce a formula:
[¬φ]
..
..
⊥ ⊥
φ ⊥E φ RAA
where, as usual, ¬φ abbreviates φ → ⊥.
Derivation rules
Introduction and elimination rules for ∧
φ ψ φ∧ψ φ∧ψ
∧I ∧Er
φ∧ψ φ ∧El ψ
∧I: if we have φ and ψ, then we may conclude φ ∧ ψ
∧El: if we have φ ∧ ψ, then we may conclude φ
∧Er: if we have φ ∧ ψ, then we may conclude ψ

Derivation rules
Introduction and elimination rules for →
[φ]
..
..
ψ φ→ψ φ
→I →E
φ→ψ ψ
→ I: if we can derive ψ from φ (as a hypothesis), then we can
conclude φ → ψ, without the hypothesis φ (which is discharged).
Agrees with intuition: φ → ψ means “ψ follows from φ”.
Rule is written so to suggest a derivation; the notation will
become clearer after we have defined derivations.
→ E: if we know that ψ follows from φ and φ is given, then we can
conclude ψ.
Rules can also be written by inverting the premises, e.g.
φ φ→ψ
→E
ψ
Derivation rules
Rules for ⊥
[¬φ]
..
..
⊥ ⊥
φ ⊥E φ RAA
The falsum rule ⊥ expresses that from an absurdity we can derive

everything (“ex falso sequitur quodlibet”).
The reduction ad absurdum rule RAA is a formulation of the

principle of proof by contradiction: if one derives a contradiction
from the hypothesis φ, then one has a derivation of φ (without the
hypothesis ¬φ).

Derivation rules
Discharged (cancelled) assumptions

In both → I and RAA, hypotheses are cancelled (or discharged).
Example for → I: a well-known theorem in plane geometry
If a triangle is isosceles, then the angles opposite the equal
sides are equal to one another
Proof: we suppose that we have an isosceles triangle and then,
in a number of steps, we deduce that the angles at the base
are equal. Hence, we conclude that the angles at the base
are equal if the triangle is isosceles.
Query 1: do we still need hypothesis that triangle is isosceles?
Of course not as we have, so to speak, incorporated this
condition in the statement itself.
It is precisely the role of conditional statements, such as “if it
rains I will use my umbrella”, to get rid of the obligation to
require (or verify) the condition.
Abstractly: if we can deduce ψ using hypothesis φ, then
φ → ψ is the case without φ (but there may be other
Dip. di Informatica (Universitàhypotheses).
di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction
Derivation rules
Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)
Query 2: is it forbidden to maintain the hypothesis?

No, but it is clearly superfluous.
We usually experience superfluous conditions as confusing
or even misleading, but that is rather a matter of the
psychology of problem solving than of formal logic.
Usually we want the best possible result, and it is intuitively
clear that the more hypotheses we state for a theorem, the
weaker our result is.
Therefore we will as a rule cancel as many hypotheses as
possible.

Derivation rules

A concrete example: let us suppose that assuming a property P, we
can show (i.e. derive) a theorem T :
P.
..
.
T

Derivation rules

P.
..
.
T
Then, we can “incorporate” the assumption by → I and discharge
it:
[P]
..
..
T
→I
P→T
This simply means that theorem T holds under the assumption P.

Derivation rules

P.
..
.
T
Then, we can “incorporate” the assumption by → I and discharge
it:
[P]
..
..
T
→I
P→T
This simply means that theorem T holds under the assumption P.
Now suppose that we prove (a lemma that states) that property P
holds:
P
Derivation rules

Then, we can conclude that the theorem T always holds:
[P]
..
..
T
→I
P→T P
→E
T

Derivation rules

Then, we can conclude that the theorem T always holds:
[P]
..
..
T
→I
P→T P
→E
T
Or, actually, we can simply combine this with the previous

derivation:
P.
..
.
T
As we will see, this “simplification” is the result of what is called
proof normalization (to obtain proofs that are free of unnecessary
detours).
Derivation rules
Example for RAA:

In analysis we introduce the notion of a convergent sequence (an )
and subsequently the notion “a is a limit of (an )”.
The next step is to prove that for each convergent sequence there
is a unique limit; we are interested in the part of the proof that
shows that there is at most one limit.
Such a proof may run as follows:
We suppose that there are two distinct limits a and a ′ , and from this
hypothesis, a , a ′ , we derive a contradiction.
Conclusion: a = a ′
In this case we of course drop the hypothesis a , a ′ as this time it
is not a case of being superfluous, but of being in conflict!
So, both for → I and RAA, it is sound practice to cancel all
occurrences of the hypothesis concerned.

Some examples of derivation
Outline
1 Introduction
3 Derivation rules
5 Derivations


φ∧ψ→ψ∧φ
[φ ∧ ψ]1 [φ ∧ ψ]1
∧Er ∧El
ψ φ
∧I
ψ∧φ
1
φ∧ψ→ψ∧φ →I
(φ → (ψ → σ)) → (φ ∧ ψ → σ)
[φ ∧ ψ]1
[φ ∧ ψ]1 φ ∧El [φ → (ψ → σ)]2
∧Er →E
ψ ψ→σ
σ →E
→ I1
φ∧ψ→σ
2
(φ → (ψ → σ)) → (φ ∧ ψ → σ) → I

Two strategies to build a derivation:

“Top-down”: from hypotheses to goal.
“Bottom-up”: from goal to hypotheses.
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “top-down”
φ φ→⊥
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “bottom-up”
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥)


φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “top-down”
φ φ→⊥
⊥ →E
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “bottom-up”
[φ]1
..
..
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥
1
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) → I


φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “top-down”
φ [φ → ⊥]1
⊥ →E
1
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥ → I
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “bottom-up”
[φ]1
[φ → ⊥]2
..
..
⊥ 2
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥ → I
1
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) → I


φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “top-down”
[φ]2
[φ → ⊥]1
⊥ →E
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥ → I1
2
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) → I
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) “bottom-up”
[φ]1
[φ → ⊥]2
⊥ →E
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥ → I2
1
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) → I

If we use the customary abbreviation “¬φ” for “φ → ⊥”, we can

bring some derivations into a more convenient form.
[φ]1
[φ → ⊥]2
→E [φ]1[¬φ]2
⊥ →E
(φ → ⊥) → ⊥ → I2 ⊥ 2
¬¬φ → I
1
φ → ((φ → ⊥) → ⊥) → I
1
φ → ¬¬φ → I

¬(φ ↔ ¬φ), where φ ↔ ψ abbreviates (φ → ψ) ∧ (ψ → φ)
[φ ↔ ¬φ]1
[φ] 2
φ → ¬φ ∧El [φ ↔ ¬φ]1
¬φ → E [φ]2 [φ] φ → ¬φ ∧El
3
⊥ →E [φ ↔ ¬φ]1 ¬φ → E [φ]3
2
¬φ → I ¬φ → φ ∧Er ⊥ →E
→E 3
φ ¬φ → I
⊥ →E
→ I1
¬(φ ↔ ¬φ)

Derivations
Outline
1 Introduction
3 Derivation rules
5 Derivations

Derivations
An inductive definition to produce trees

If
D1 D2
φ1 and φ2
are derivations with conclusion φ1 and φ2 , then
D1 D1 D2
φ1 φ1 φ2
ψ and ψ
are derivations obtained by applying a rule to φ1 , and to φ1 and φ2 .

If
ψ
D
φ
is a derivation with hypothesis ψ, then
[ψ]
D
φ
σ
is a derivation with ψ discharged.

Derivations
More notes on discharging of hypothesis
[ψ]
D
φ
σ
Note that one does not necessarily cancel all occurrences of such
a proposition ψ.
This clearly is justified, as adding hypotheses does not make a
proposition underivable (irrelevant information may always be
added).
It is a matter of prudence, however, to cancel as much as possible.
Why carry more hypotheses than necessary?
Furthermore one may also apply → I if there is no hypothesis
available for cancellation, e.g.
φ
→I
ψ→φ
is a correct derivation, using just → I.
Derivations
More notes on discharging of hypothesis (cont.)
[φ]
.. [¬φ]
.. ..
..
ψ ⊥
→I
φ→ψ and φ RAA
To sum it up: given a derivation tree of ψ (or ⊥), we obtain a

derivation tree of φ → ψ (or φ) at the bottom of the tree and
discharging some (or all) occurrences, if any, of φ (or ¬φ) on top
of a tree.

Derivations
Another observation
Recall that ¬φ abbreviates φ → ⊥. The rules
[φ] [¬φ]
.. ..
.. ..
⊥ ⊥
¬φ → I and φ RAA
look very much alike but they are not both cases of Reductio Ad
Absurdum.
The leftmost derivation tells us (informally) that the assumption of φ
leads to a contradiction, so φ cannot be the case, which is the meaning
of “not φ”.
The rightmost derivation tells us that the assumption of ¬φ leads to a
contradiction, hence (by the same reasoning) ¬φ cannot be the case.
So, on account of the meaning of negation, we only would get ¬¬φ.
It is by no means clear that ¬¬φ is equivalent to φ (indeed, this is denied
by the intuitionists), so it is an extra property of our logic.
(¬¬φ → φ is not derivable in the system without RAA)
Derivations
Set of derivations
The set of derivations is the smallest set X such that

(1) The one element tree φ belongs to X for all φ ∈ PROP
D1 D2
(2∧) If D 1 ∈ X and D2 ∈ X , then φ1 φ2 ∈X
φ1 φ2
φ1 ∧ φ2 ∧I
D D
If φ D ∈ X , then φ1 ∧ φ2 ∈ X and φ1 ∧ φ2 ∈X
1 ∧ φ2 ∧El ∧Er
φ1 φ2
[φ]
φ
D
(2→) If D ∈ X , then ψ ∈X
ψ →I
φ→ψ
D1 D2
D1 D 2 φ →ψ φ
If φ → ψ ∈ X and φ ∈ X , then ∈X
→E
ψ

Derivations
Set of derivations (cont.)
The set of derivations is the smallest set X such that

D
(2⊥) If D ∈ X , then ⊥ ∈X
⊥ φ ⊥E
¬φ [¬φ]
If D ∈ X , then D ∈X
⊥ ⊥
φ RAA
The bottom formula of a derivation is called its conclusion.
Since the set of derivations is defined inductively, we have a principle
of induction on D and we can define mappings on the set of derivation
by recursion (similar to what we did in the previous lectures).

Derivations
⊢ (turnstyle symbol)
Relation Γ ⊢ φ between sets of propositions and propositions

Γ ⊢ φ iff there is a derivation with conclusion φ and with all
(undischarged) hypothesis in Γ.
We then say that φ is derivable from Γ.

If Γ = {}, we write ⊢ φ and say that φ is a theorem.

Derivations
From the definition of derivation, we have that
1 Γ ⊢ φ if φ ∈ Γ
2 If Γ1 ⊢ φ1 and Γ2 ⊢ φ2 then Γ1 ∪ Γ2 ⊢ φ1 ∧ φ2
3 If Γ ⊢ φ1 ∧ φ2 then Γ ⊢ φ1 and Γ ⊢ φ2
4 If Γ ∪ {φ1 } ⊢ φ2 then Γ ⊢ φ1 → φ2
5 If Γ1 ⊢ φ1 → φ2 and Γ2 ⊢ φ1 then Γ1 ∪ Γ2 ⊢ φ2
6 If Γ ⊢ ⊥ then Γ ⊢ φ
7 If Γ ∪ {¬φ} ⊢ ⊥ then Γ ⊢ φ
We will also write simply Γ, φ1 ⊢ φ2 for Γ ∪ {φ1 } ⊢ φ2 and, more
generally, Γ1 , Γ2 ⊢ φ for Γ1 ∪ Γ2 ⊢ φ

Derivations
Exercises: prove the following

1 ⊢ φ → (ψ → φ)
2 ⊢ φ → (¬φ → ψ)
3 ⊢ (φ → ψ) → [(ψ → σ) → (φ → σ)]
4 ⊢ (φ → ψ) ↔ (¬ψ → ¬φ)
5 ⊢ ¬¬φ ↔ φ
6 ⊢ [φ → (ψ → σ)] ↔ [(φ ∧ ψ) → σ]
7 ⊢ ⊥ ↔ (φ ∧ ¬φ)
8 ⊢φ→φ
9 ⊢⊥→φ
10 If ⊢ φ then ⊢ ψ → φ
11 ¬φ ⊢ φ → ψ
12 ¬(φ ∧ ¬ψ), φ ⊢ ψ
13 If Γ ⊢ φ then Γ ∪ ∆ ⊢ φ
14 If Γ ⊢ φ and ∆, φ ⊢ ψ then Γ ∪ ∆ ⊢ ψ
Derivations
Next lecture
Derivation strategy.
Soundness and completeness.

Derivations
Bibliography
Dirk van Dalen. Logic and structure (4th ed.), Springer-Verlag, 2008.
See also:
Michael Huth and Mark Ryan. Logic in Computer Science (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/lics
Dario Palladino. Corso di Logica, Carocci editore, 2008.
Achille Varzi, John Nolt, Dennis Rohatyn. Logica (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill,
2007. http://www.ateneonline.it/varzi
Andrea Asperti, Agata Ciabattoni. Logica a Informatica. McGraw Hill,
2007. Disponibile solo per acquisto online:
http://www.ateneonline.it/catlibro.asp?item_id=2469
Marco Borga. Elementi di Logica Matematica. La Goliardica Editrice
Universitaria di Roma, 1984.

Lec04 Natded

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lec04 Natded

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

4 Some examples of derivation

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

4 Some examples of derivation

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Natural Deduction: natural logical arguments

where the leaves are called assumptions (hypotheses).

4 Some examples of derivation

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Natural Deduction: an abstract example

How do you read/apply these rules?

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Natural Deduction: an abstract example

How do you read/apply these rules?

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

We make an assumption. The assumption is now open.

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Why is this example abstract?

Natural Deduction is not just about propositional logic!

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

How to read these rules

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

How to read these rules

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

How to read these rules

In everyday language, “making an assumption” has a connotation

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

What does “open assumption” mean?

For example, all logical statements at the leaves of the proof

For the moment, it suffices to know that when an assumption is

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

4 Some examples of derivation

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Intuitive (constructive) meaning of the connectives

A restriction (without loss of generality)

Disjunction has a strikingly different meaning in a constructive and

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Introduction and elimination rules

Introduction and elimination rules for ∧

∧I: if we have φ and ψ, then we may conclude φ ∧ ψ

∧El: if we have φ ∧ ψ, then we may conclude φ

∧Er: if we have φ ∧ ψ, then we may conclude ψ

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Introduction and elimination rules for →

The falsum rule ⊥ expresses that from an absurdity we can derive

The reduction ad absurdum rule RAA is a formulation of the

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)

Query 2: is it forbidden to maintain the hypothesis?

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)

Dip. di Informatica (Università di Verona) Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)

Discharged (cancelled) assumptions (cont.)