→ Rules for conjunction

An B
Aan%- ( NI)
a-
and
A^BB_ ( RE)

depending on which is
needed

→ Rules for disjunction

Av B at least of them
we can obtain as
long as one

is true This introduction rules CVI)

.

gives

A and
ABI cut

An B 1- BVC
g prove
e.

1 .
A NB data
2 . B From (1) and (NE)
BVC from and ( ✓ I
3 .

)
 Elimination of Disjunction ( VE)

→ This is an indirect rule

→ We can eliminate a disjunction AVB by showing that
some formula C follows from both A and B , so whichever
is the case C will hold :
,

A→C,BAVB ( VE)

e.
g

A A →
( Brc ) B → D , C→ Di -
D
, ,

1) A data
2) A → ( Brc ) data
3) B→D data
4) c→D data
5) BVC 2) and ( → E)
from 1) ,
G) D 3) 4) 5) and (✓ E)
from , ,
 Rules for negation G)
→ Indirect rule
→ In order to conclude > A ,
we must show that if A the
were

case then we would reach a contradiction ( e.g B and > B)

Thus .

A→B,a^B C- I)

→ > is eliminated with the same reasoning

→
A→B,-A→B_
( E)
→
A
e.
g
A → B A
,
→ >B
,
C 1- 7A A C

1) A → B data
2) A → - B data
3) C data
4) > A from 1) 2) and ← I)
,

5) 7 A NC from 3) 4) and ( AI)

,
 Elimination of Implication ( → E)

→
if we know that an
implication and its
anti decent are both
true the also know that the
,
we must consequent of the
implication is true .

A,Ag→B_ (→ E)

e.
g
A NC A → B 1- B
,
data
e) A NC

2) A
→ B data

3) A from 1) and Cl E)
4) B from 3) 2) and ( → E)
,

Introduction of implication (→ I)

→ if we want to derive A→B from some premises then we

,
must show

that these premises together with A

imply B
if A
( )
Pm→i÷ pemB I
→
,

→ The
proof B indeed follows from the addition of A b- premises
is done in a
separate sub computation box
 Sub computation

→ A sub computation box that the consequent of the implication

valid conclusion under the
is a
assumption that the antedecent
is true This justifies the derivation of the
.

implication
because
↳ if the assumption is true , the box provides valid proof
a

↳
of the consequent therefore the ,
implication holds
if the false the implication will hold
assumption is ,

anyway
because an implication is true when its
antedecent is false

→ Therefore , if the box to show the conclusion the implication

manages ,

will be true whether or not the extra assumption is true and

therefore true under the original assumptions
e. that A B B→ C 1- A C
g
→
prove
→
,

1) A → B data
C data
2) B →

3) A →
C
(→ I) from subcomputation below
,

3. 1) ≤
A assumption
3- 2) B from 3. 1) 1) and ⇐ E)
,

3. 3) C from 3-2) 2) and @ E) ,

 In order to
→
correctly perform a sub computation follow these

↳ The
assumption used in beginning of sub computation
box can
↳ only be used in that box
Any conclusions previously available including ,

premises and formulas derived can also be used inside

↳ Any
box
conclusion obtained inside box that depends on the box 's
assumption cannot be used on its own .

e-
g
from previous example C cannot be used ,
on its own as its
proof depends A's assumption on .

Nested sub computations

e.
g prove A → B 1- rB→ > A

1) A → B data
2) TB → 7A ( → E) , from sub computation below

2. 1) TB assumption 71
2- 2) A → >B ↳ I) sub computation below
,

2-2. 1) A assumption 71
2. 2. 2) TB from 2. 1) and ↳ E)

2.
3) TA from 1.) ,
2. 2) and GI)
Rules for Equivalence ( )

A→BaB☐→ ( est)
µA→R¥→cE
)

Variant Rules

,A¥÷ ( )
→ Ei

AVBjA_ (VEI )

(71--1)
77m¥

AVB.gg?B-(vEDn?n-GIi)A-sc,B?,DsAVB-(cD) 7A→BpgA→B_ ( > E- 2)

A→c;Ba?,%~>☐_ ( D) ☐

)
¥÷ .
( → Ii

(
A%_B → 1--2 )