MTH 302: Handout I Axiomatic Classical Propositional Calculus (P C )

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

Well-formed Formulae (ws)

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

alphabet in a suitable order, one that would demonstrate its countability.

Abbreviations (a) := ( ), (b) := , (c) := ( ) ( ).

1.3

Axioms

A1 ( ) A2 ( ( )) (( ) ( )) A3 ( ) ( )

1.4

Rule of Inference

Modus Ponens (M P )

1.5

The Syntactic Consequence relation

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 .

for each and

, there is a nite subset of such that then .

Theorem 1.3. (Deduction) For any , , , if {}

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 {} . .

(b) (Hypothetical Syllogism (HS )) { , } (d) If {} . ( ) . 2, then . . ( ) ( ). . . 2, 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.

Denition 3.1. is said to be negation consistent if and only if

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
.

Theorem 4.1. (Completeness) If |= then

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 .

(b) if and only if . (c) if and only if , or . 5

(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, .