PROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS

In mathematical logic, a propositional calculus or logic (also called sentential calculus or sentential logic) is a formal system in which formulas of a formal language may be interpreted as representing propositions. A system of inference rules and axioms allows certain formulas to be derived, called theorems; which may be interpreted as true propositions. The series of formulas which is constructed within such a system is called a derivation and the last formula of the series is a theorem, whose derivation may be interpreted as a proof of the truth of the proposition represented by the theorem. Truth-functional propositional logic is a propositional logic whose interpretation limits the truth values of its propositions to two, usually true and false. Truth-functional propositional logic and systems isomorphic to it are considered to be zeroth-order logic.
Contents
[hide]

  

1 History 2 Terminology 3 Basic concepts

o o     

3.1 Closure under operations 3.2 Argument

4 Generic description of a propositional calculus 5 Example 1. Simple axiom system 6 Example 2. Natural deduction system 7 Basic and derived argument forms 8 Proofs in propositional calculus

o 

8.1 Example of a proof

9 Soundness and completeness of the rules

o o o 

9.1 Sketch of a soundness proof 9.2 Sketch of completeness proof 9.3 Another outline for a completeness proof

10 Interpretation of a truth-functional propositional calculus

o 

10.1 Interpretation of a sentence of truth-functional propositional logic

11 Alternative calculus

o o

11.1 Axioms 11.2 Inference rule

o o     

11.3 Meta-inference rule 11.4 Example of a proof

12 Equivalence to equational logics 13 Graphical calculi 14 Other logical calculi 15 Solvers 16 See also

o o  

16.1 Higher logical levels 16.2 Related topics

17 References 18 Further reading

o 

18.1 Related works

19 External links

[edit]History Main article: History of logic Although propositional logic (which is interchangeable with propositional calculus) had been hinted by [1] earlier philosophers, it was developed into a formal logic by Chrysippus and expanded by the Stoics. The logic was focused on propositions. This advancement was different from the traditional syllogistic logic which was focused on terms. However, later in antiquity, the propositional logic developed by the [2] stoics was no longer understood. As a result, the system was essentially reinvented by Peter Abelard. Propositional logic was eventually refined using symbolic logic. Gottfried Leibniz has been credited with being the founder of symbolic logic for his work with the calculus ratiocinator. Although his work was the first of its kind, it was unknown to the larger logical community. As a result, many of the advances achieved by Leibniz were reachieved by logicians like George Boole and Augustus De [3] Morgan completely independent of Leibniz. Just as propositional logic can be seen as an advancement from the earlier syllogistic logic, Gottlob Frege's predicate logic was an advancement from the earlier propositional logic. Predicate logic has been [4] described as combining "the distinctive features of syllogistic logic and propositional logic." As a result, it ushered a new era in the history of logic. However, advances in propositional logic were still made after Frege. These include Natural Deduction, Truth-Trees and Truth-Tables. Natural deduction was invented [5] by Jan Łukasiewicz. Truth-Trees were invented by Evert Willem Beth. The invention of truth-tables, however, is of controversial attribution. The ideas preceding truth tables have been found in both Frege and Bertrand Russell whereas the actual 'tabular structure' (i.e. being formed as a table) is generally credited to either Ludwig [6] Wittgenstein, Emil Post or both (independently of one another). Besides Frege and Russell, others credited for having preceding ideas of truth-tables include Philo, Boole, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Ernst Schröder. And besides Post and Wittgenstein, others credited with the tabular structure include
[6] [7]

Łukasiewicz, Schröder, Alfred North Whitehead, William Stanley Jevons, John Venn, and Clarence Irving [7] Lewis. Ultimately, some, like John Shosky, have concluded "It is far from clear that any one person [7] should be given the title of 'inventor' of truth-tables.". [edit]Terminology In general terms, a calculus is a formal system that consists of a set of syntactic expressions (well-formed formulæ or wffs), a distinguished subset of these expressions (axioms), plus a set of formal rules that define a specific binary relation, intended to be interpreted as logical equivalence, on the space of expressions. When the formal system is intended to be a logical system, the expressions are meant to be interpreted as statements, and the rules, known as inference rules, are typically intended to be truth-preserving. In this setting, the rules (which may include axioms) can then be used to derive ("infer") formulæ representing true statements from given formulæ representing true statements. The set of axioms may be empty, a nonempty finite set, a countably infinite set, or be given by axiom schemata. A formal grammar recursively defines the expressions and well-formed formulæ (wffs) of the language. In addition a semantics may be given which defines truth and valuations (or interpretations). The language of a propositional calculus consists of 1. a set of primitive symbols, variously referred to as atomic formulae, placeholders, proposition letters, or variables, and 2. a set of operator symbols, variously interpreted as logical operators or logical connectives. A well-formed formula (wff) is any atomic formula, or any formula that can be built up from atomic formulæ by means of operator symbols according to the rules of the grammar. Mathematicians sometimes distinguish between propositional constants, propositional variables, and schemata. Propositional constants represent some particular proposition, while propositional variables range over the set of all atomic propositions. Schemata, however, range over all propositions. It is common to represent propositional constants by and , , and , propositional variables by , , and . , , , and schematic letters are often Greek letters, most often

[edit]Basic

concepts

The following outlines a standard propositional calculus. Many different formulations exist which are all more or less equivalent but differ in the details of 1. their language, that is, the particular collection of primitive symbols and operator symbols, 2. the set of axioms, or distinguished formulæ, and 3. the set of inference rules. We may represent any given proposition with a letter which we call a propositional constant, analogous to representing a number by a letter in mathematics, for instance, . We require that all propositions have exactly one of two truth-values: true or false. To take an example, let be the proposition that it is raining outside. This will be true if it is raining outside and false otherwise.

Thus we must write either to represent the former. does not have the same truth conditions as . for instance. whenever and are true.  Disjunction resembles conjunction in that it forms a proposition out of two simpler propositions.) It expresses that is true whenever is true. we can form a finite number of cases which list their possible truth-values. If it is not is true in case 1 and is false otherwise. so they are different sentences distinguished only by the parentheses. in which Q is also true. onl y relates two propositions by their truth-values—which is not the relation of cause and effect. By evaluating the truth conditions. Using the example. Likewise. or by a more standard reading: "It is not the case that it is raining outside. because this is the only case when is true but is not. 3. and so it can be conjoined with another proposition. regardless of the location of the parentheses. but not both. and expresses that each are true. [edit]Argument The propositional calculus then defines an argument as a set of propositions. and we write . we cannot consider case 2.  Biconditional joins two simpler propositions. this use of disjunction is supposed to resemble the use of the English word "or". and false otherwise. In the example above. which expresses the truth of exactly one of two propositions. . That is to say. This implies that. necessarily is true. "or" is always used as inclusive or. is true when it is raining outside and there is a cold-front over Kansas. we cannot consider cases 3 and 4 (from the truth table). and . since they are commutative operations. A valid argument is a set of propositions. We write to represent the negation of . however. Thus it is true in every case above except case 2. if must be true whenever every member of the set is true. The proposition to the left of the arrow is called the antecedent and the proposition to the right is called the consequent. The material conditional is often confused with physical causation. however. Thus. Thus. the disjunction of and is true in all cases except 4. the sentence verify this by the truth-table method referenced above. thus if and only if is true in cases 1 and 4. each line is a proposition.)  Material conditional also joins two simpler propositions. . and the last follows from the rest. there are four possible is true and is true and is false and is false and and is true is false is true is false is the proposition that it is raining outside and is the proposition that a cold-front is over Kansas. in which one writes . is also a proposition. and it is read " or ". and biconditional. 2. An example of the exclusive or is: You may have a bagel or a pastry. For instance. for any proposition . and the last line the conclusion. and similarly for disjunction. we see that both expressions have the same truth conditions (will be true in the same cases). for any and . Using the example above. beginning with negation. is true. This will give a complete listing of cases or truth-value assignments possible for those propositional constants. any list of propositional constants with entries. we need to use parentheses to indicate which proposition is c onjoined with which. expresses that it is not raining outside. always has the same truth-value as . is not a well-formed formula. and below one fills in the first half of the rows with true (or T) and the second half with false (or F). then sixteenths. Thus Q is implied by the premises. and so on. as well as the method of analytic tableaux. Below this list. It expresses that and have the same truth-value. (There is no such designation for conjunction or disjunction. When is true. for any propositions and . The simplest valid argument is modus ponens. is false. when is true. however. The material conditional. in the cases listed above. the exclusive "or" is false when both and are true (case 1). then is false. then one-quarter with F. possibly by "xor". if exclusive or is meant it will be specified. In mathematics. It expresses that either or is true. Below one fills in one-quarter of the rows with T. A simple way to generate this is by truth-tables. That is to say. the addendum "but not both" is omitted but implied. is a proposition. [edit]Closure under operations Propositional logic is closed under truth-functional connectives." When is true. The conjunction of and and is written . In the argument above. However. This leaves only case 1. one should not assume that parentheses never serve a purpose. given the appropriate context. All other arguments are invalid. One can Note: For any arbitrary number of propositional constants. In order to represent this. the last of which follows from —or is implied by—the rest. and moreover that any proposition formed by arbitrary conjunctions will have the same truth conditions. For instance. 4. The conjunction of  ". one instance of which is the following set of propositions: This is a set of three propositions. It is not like the English exclusive "or". Conjunction is a truth-functional connective which forms a proposition out of two simpler propositions. is a proposition. and we write . This means that conjunction is associative. and if there is no cold-front over Kansas. which can be used to express the truth of at least one of two propositions. …. it is most like the English inclusive "or". The first two lines are called premises. For any two propositions. because we do not know if we are conjoining with or if we are conjoining with . We write it . and when is false. We then define truth-functional operators. one writes rows. then one-quarter with T and the last quarter with F. which can be thought of as the denial of . for example. or to represent the latter. where and may be any propositions at all. Often in natural language. It is contentious in the literature whether the material implication represents logical causation. the disjunction expresses that it is either raining outside or there is a cold front over Kansas. This generalizes schematically. until the last propositional constant varies between T and F for each row. Notice that. then is false. (Note. It is extremely helpful to look at the truth tables for these different operators. We say that any proposition follows from any set of propositions . Where raining outside. The next column alternates between true and false for each eighth of the rows. We read as " assignments of truth values: 1. which is read " if and only if ". conditional. if then expresses that if it is raining outside then there is a cold-front over Kansas. for any list of propositional constants—that is to say. which is read "if then ".

The language of . In the more familiar propositional calculi. is a formula. though. nothing else may be deduced. modus ponens is sufficient to prove all other argument forms in propositional logic. After the argument is made. Also. For instance. Because we have not included sufficiently complete axioms. is a formula. so . By rule 1. 2.  The omega set is a finite set of elements called operator symbols or logical connectives. which is the set of all propositions which follow from . 3. {F. Thus. By rule 2. or all being seen in various contexts instead of {0. Reiteration is always assumed. Base: Any element of the alpha set is a formula of . The significance of argument in formal logic is that one may obtain new truths from established truths. or N. otherwise referred to as atomic formulæ or terminal elements. as well as modus ponens. is a formula. given the two premises. . is inductively defined by the following rules: 1. the truth of is not yet known or stated. the elements of are typically the letters . 3. is typically partitioned as follows: A frequently adopted convention treats the constant logical values as operators of arity zero. the prefixed K. and so . T}. we can define a deduction system. Given a complete set of axioms (see below for one such set). Closed: Nothing else is a formula of .Other argument forms are convenient. The set is partitioned into disjoint subsets as follows: In this partition. .   The zeta set is a finite set of transformation rules that are called inference rules when they acquire logical applications. and so on. is a formula. In the examples to follow. true}. even though most deduction systems studied in propositional logic are able to deduce [edit]Generic . . where:  The alpha set is a finite set of elements called proposition symbols or propositional variables. Syntactically speaking. is deduced. Notation varies even more for the set of logical values. last element. are defined as follows: . By rule 1. In this way. also known as its set of formulæ. Repeated applications of these rules permits the construction of complex formulæ. well-formed formulas or wffs. instead of . is a consequence. then is a formula. we define a deduction system as a set of all propositions that may be deduced from another set of propositions. 2. but not necessary. given the set of propositions . Note. If are formulæ and is in . description of a propositional calculus A propositional calculus is a formal system . 1. In the first example above. where . from the first element of . . this is not true of the extension of propositional logic to other logics like first-order logic. is the set of operator symbols of arity . thus: Some writers use the tilde (~). and so we may think of them as derivative. First-order logic requires at least one additional rule of inference in order to obtain completeness. For example: 1. with symbols like {false. The iota set is a finite set of initial points that are called axioms when they receive logical interpretations. 4. [edit]Example By rule 2. these are the most basic elements of the formal language . this one is too weak to prove such a proposition. Simple axiom system Let . and some use the ampersand (&). 1}. or instead of . .

. are defined as follows:  The alpha set . Then is defined as . the transformation rules are intended to be interpreted as the inference rules of a so-called natural deduction system. with defined as . one can be taken as primitive and the other two can be ). The . The first nine simply state that we can infer certain wffs from other wffs. The particular system presented here has no initial points. all of the logical connectives can be defined in terms of a sole sufficient operator. is a finite set of symbols that is large enough to supply the needs of a given discussion. Indeed. infer ). where . and the last one as a hypotheticalrule. . . Natural deduction system Let . The alpha set . . that is. and is defined as [edit]Example . which means that its interpretation for logical applications derives its theorems from an empty axiom set. . . we may introduce a metalanguage symbol . and ). from and . The set of transformation rules. in which is a (possibly empty) set of formulae called premises. and implication ( defined in terms of it and negation ( . for example:  Of the three connectives for conjunction. Since the first nine rules don't do this they are usually described as nonhypothetical rules. In describing the transformation rules. It is basically a convenient shorthand for saying "infer that". The axioms are all substitution instances of:     The rule of inference is modus ponens (i. and is a formula called conclusion. These rules allow us to derive other true formulae given a set of formulae that are assumed to be true. Adopting negation and implication as the two primitive operations of a propositional calculus is tantamount to having the omega set partition as follows:  An axiom system discovered by Jan Łukasiewicz formulates a propositional calculus in this language as follows. 2. disjunction. for example:  The omega set follows: partitions as In the following example of a propositional calculus.   The set of initial points is empty. is described as follows: Our propositional calculus has ten inference rules. The biconditional ( ) can of course be defined in terms of conjunction and implication.e. The last rule however uses hypothetical reasoning in the sense that in the premise of the rule we temporarily assume an (unproven) hypothesis to be part of the set of inferred formulae to see if we can infer a certain other formula. The format is . is a finite set of symbols that is large enough to supply the needs of a given discussion.

transformation rule

means that if every proposition in

is a theorem

(or has the same truth value as the axioms), then

is also a theorem. Note that considering the

following rule Conjunction introduction, we will know whenever has more than one formula, we can always safely reduce it into one formula using conjunction. So for short, from that time on we may

represent

as one formula instead of a set. Another omission for convenience is when

is

an empty set, in which case

may not appear.

Reductio ad absurdum (negation introduction)

From

and

, infer

.

That is,

. Double negative elimination

From

, infer

.

That is,

. Conjunction introduction

From

and

, infer

.

That is,

. Conjunction elimination

From

, infer

.

From

, infer

.

That is,

and

. D i s j u n c t i o n i n t r o d u c t i o n

From

, infer

.

From

, infer

.

That is,

and

.

From

and

and

, infer

.

That is,

.

From

and

, infer

.

That is,

.

From

, infer

.

From

, infer

.

That is,

and

.

From

and

, infer

.

That is,

.

From [accepting

allows a proof of

], infer

.

That is,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

If the set of wffs syntactically entails wff then semantically entails If the set of wffs semantically entails wff then syntactically entails .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

means that is logically valid .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

If the sequence

has been demonstrated, then it is also possible to demonstrate the sequence

.

.

.

.

then it is also possible to demonstrate the sequence If then 1: 2: and from (1) and (2) can be deduced .If the sequence has been demonstrated.

.D.E.3: by means of modus ponens. Q.

.

.

.

From (3) and (4) by modus ponens. . Axiom THEN-1 with . . From (1) and (2) by modus ponens.Axiom THEN-2 with . Axiom THEN-1 with .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.