You are on page 1of 4

# c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

## B.A. Introduction to Logic 2012-13

Lecture 16: Quantificational Logic IV
Recap
Multiple generality and complex matrices: We looked at QL formulas which involve both multiple generality and complex matrices, e.g. x [Fx y [Gy & Rxy]] Reflexivity: R is reflexive if and only if: R is irreflexive if and only if: R is non-reflexive if and only if: x [Rxx] x [~ Rxx] x [Rxx] & x [~ Rxx]

Symmetry: R is symmetrical if and only if: R is asymmetrical if and only if: R is non-symmetrical if and only if: x [y [Rxy Ryx]] x [y [Rxy ~ Ryx]] x [y [Rxy & Ryx]] & x [y [Rxy & ~ Ryx]]

Transitivity: R is transitive if and only if: R is intransitive if and only if: R is non-transitive if and only if: x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) & Rxz]]] & x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) & ~ Rxz]]] Identity: = represents identity. If a denotes James Bond and b denotes 007, we can translate James Bond is 007 as a = b. Numerically definite quantification: = allows us to quantify in a numerically precise way. For example, if F translates ...is red, then we can translate there are exactly two red things as: x [y [((Fx & Fy) & ~ (x = y)) & z [Fz ((z = x) v (z = y))]]] x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) Rxz]]] x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) ~ Rxz]]]

Proof Theory in QL
Proofs in QL have the same four elements as proofs in PL: dependency-number, line number, formula, and rule annotation. Moreover, all the rules of inference in PL (&I, &E, MP, CP, etc.) carry over to QL. But in QL, there are four extra rules of inference to consider: an introduction and an elimination rule for both the universal and existential quantifiers. 1

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

UE
Well start with the elimination rule for the universal quantifier: the rule UE. UE: Given any universal formula on any line of proof you may infer any particular instance of that formula on another line of proof. The new line should be annotated with the line number of the universal formula in question and UE. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the line of the original universal formula. What is an instance of a universal formula? To get an instance of a universal formula, remove the initial quantifier/variable construction, then replace the remaining variables with names. For example: x [Fx] x [Fx] x [Fx Gx] y [Fy & Gy] x [~ Fx] Fa Fb Fa Ga Fa & Ga ~ Fc

Now lets look at some examples of UE in action. Example 1: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx] : Fa We begin, as usual, by entering the premise; then we can use UE to move directly to the conclusion: {1} {1} 1. 2. x [Fx] Fa Premise 1 UE

Example 2: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx] : Fa & Fb Here we need to apply UE twice, before using &I to give us the conclusion: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. x [Fx] Fa Fb Fa & Fb Premise 1 UE 1 UE 2,3 &I

Example 3: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: y [Fy Gy], y [Gy Hy] : Fb Hb Here well need to use MP and CP as well as UE, as follows: 2

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk {1} {2} {1} {2} {5} {1,5} {1,2,5} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. y [Fy Gy] y [Gy Hy] Fb Gb Gb Hb Fb Gb Hb Fb Hb Premise Premise 1 UE 2 UE A 3,5 MP 4,6 MP 5,7 CP

UI
Now lets move on to look at the introduction rule for the universal quantifier: the rule UI. UI: Given a formula containing a name on any line of proof, you may replace each occurrence of that name with a variable, introduce the universal quantifier to that matrix and write the resulting formula on a new line provided that the original formula containing the name does not include among its dependencies any formula containing that name. Annotate the new line UI together with the line number of the original line. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the line of the original formula. Heres the basic idea: if youve got an instance of a universal formula then youre allowed to infer the universal formula in question, but only under certain circumstances. The key is to understand the nature of the restriction, which is needed is to prevent inferences such as this: {1} {1} 1. 2. Fa x [Fx] Premise 1 UI

This inference is not permitted by UI. Why not? Look at the formula on line 1 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to the same line, line 1. But as weve just noted, line 1 contains the name a. For this reason, UI cannot be applied. Heres another example of an illegitimate use of UI: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. Fa & Gb Fa Gb x [Gx] Premise 1 &E 1 &E 3 UI

Why is this use of UI illegitimate? Look at the formula on line 3 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name b. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to line 1. Line 1 also contains the name b. This is why UI cannot be applied. Now lets contrast these misapplications of UI with some perfectly legitimate applications: 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

Example 1: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx & Gx] : x [Fx] The proof would look like this: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. x [Fx & Gx] Fa & Ga Fa x [Fx] Premise 1 UE 2 &E 3 UI

Why is this a legitimate use of UI? Look at the formula on line 3 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to line 1. Line 1 does not contain the name a. This is why we can apply UI. Example 2: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx Gx], x [Fx] : x [Gx] The proof would look like this: {1} {2} {1} {2} {1,2} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. x [Fx Gx] x [Fx] Fa Ga Fa Ga x [Gx] Premise Premise 1 UE 2 UE 3,4 MP 5 UI

Look at the formula on line 5 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-numbers for this line, which refer us back to lines 1 and 2. Lines 1 and 2 do not contain the name a. This is why we can apply UI.