Independent Axiom Schemata for Von Wright's M

Author(s): Alan Ross Anderson

Source: The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sep., 1957), pp. 241-244
Published by: Association for Symbolic Logic
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2963591 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 06:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Symbolic Logic is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Symbolic Logic.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:17:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF SYMBOLICLOGIC
Volume 22, Number 3, Sept. 1957

INDEPENDENT AXIOM SCHEMATA FOR VON WRIGHT'S M

ALAN ROSS ANDERSON

In this paper we show how a modification of results due to Simons ([6])1

yields a set of independent axiom schemata for von Wright's M ([8], p. 85),
with a single primitive rule of inference. We first describe a system M*,
then show its equivalence with M, and finally show that our schemata are
independent.

1. Axiomatization of M*. We adopt the notational conventions of

McKinsey and Tarski ([4], p. 2), as amended by Simons ([6], p. 309), except
that we take "(a -f)" as an abbreviation for " -oc fi)", rather
than for "o (oc/A )". Our only rule of inference is:
RULE. If F a and F ( on -> f), then F fi.
We&have six axiom schemata:
A 1. F [ac-- (a A o)].
A2. F [(o/A,) -3 fi].
A3. {[ (ye A x) A A(fl A y)] - ( A L)}.
A4. F {(hvoc -,.a) [(aq
) (Gov ,,oc
A5. F (GO .OD o).
A6. F [(ac-- A) -- (G-OT GOTc)].
We require a number of theorems for the proof of equivalence of M*
with M.
THEOREM 1. If F a and F (a *f), then fl.

(1) FL hyp.
(2) F(of) hyp.
(3) [(aP -p) - -)] A4, A5, Rule.
(4) F (bomL) (2), (3), Rule.
(5) Ffl (1), (4), Rule.
THEOREM 2. If F X and P (M?, fo), then F /.
Proof by hypothesis, A5, and Theorem 1 (twice).
THEOREM 3. If F(Xoc!fl), then F (fl+ x0 o).
Proof by hypothesis, A6, and Theorem 2.
THEOREM 4. If F (M-g P), then F (y A M)--3 ( A y)].
(1) F (om
-q f) hyp.
(2) F {(l) [ (y A/a) fAy) A 3, Th. 3.

Received May 16, 1956.

Bracketed numbers refer to items of the bibliography.

241

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:17:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 ALAN ROSS ANDERSON

(3) F [ YA X) (K AY)] (1), (2), Th. 1.

- ) and F (,fl
THEOREM 5. If F (ocM y), then F yAMC).
(1) F (M4- ) hyp.
(2) F [(YAM) - (fA by)] (1), Th. 4.
(3) F [(I y) (Aac)] (2), Th. 3.
(4) F --3y) hype
(5) F y c c) (3), (4), Th. 1.
THEOREM6. F e( A4
Proof by A1 and A2 (writing "oc"for "fi"), and Theorem 5.
Proofs of Theorems 7-10 below are like Simons', except that we use (a)
our definition of "-s"instead of his, and (b) our Theorem 3 where he uses
his Theorem 2. Otherwise, where he uses his Theorem n, we use ours.
(Some of the intermediate steps in proofs will of course be different from
corresponding steps in Simons' proofs, but the Theorems are the same.)
THEOREM 7. I (FGA - or).
THEOREM 8. 1 (M ZINC).
-

THEOREM 9. -fl), then F (fl- M).

If F (b-e
THEOREM 10. If F (a -- fi), then F (,f be). .

The proof of our Theorem 11 is like Simons' proof of his Theorem 12,
except that referenceto his Theorem 10 in Step-13)is replaced by reference
to our Theorem 9, and his axioms are replaced by ours. (Notice a misprint
in Simons' proof: at Step (8), for "H5" read "Th. 5.")
THEOREM11. F (Cc oC).
THEOREM 12. F [(MAfl) -. (lA Mc)].
Proof by Theorems 11, 4 and 9 (twice).
THEOREM 13. -q f) and F (fi -- y), then F (M y).
If F (Mx -

(1) F (a q- A) hyp.
(2) F (fl-y) hyp.
(3) F A(y/ ) (1), (2), Th. 5.
(4) F (y m)Th. 11.
(5) F [(cx A\m)q( A ox)] (4), Th. 4.
(6) F [A( y A ox)(-(x -- y)] (5), Th. 3.
(7) F (x-. y) (3), (6), Th. 1.
THEOREM 14. F [(ocAf) ].
Proof like that of Simons' Theorem 15.
THEOREM15. II F oc, then F 0
(1) F(-M<>C) Th. 11,A5,Th. 1.
(2) Fdoc hyp., Rule.

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:17:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDEPENDENT AXIOM SCHEMATA FOR VON WRIGHT S M 243

THEOREM 16. If F (a- g ), then F [(a A y)-q (yA)].

Proof by Theorems 4, 9, 12 and 13.
THEOREM 17. F {(cc-> -) H( A y) - (y Aa)]}.
(1) F {[ (y A ox)A .( A y)] (a A JOB)} A3, Th. 9 (twice).
(2) F [(A y) - ( A y)] Th. 8.
(3) F {[A( A A)A A ?)] [(y A a) A (fl A)]}
(2), Th. 16.
(4) F AtAA ))] (a A (1), (3), Th. 13.
(5) F {( l)A [f y) A.(yAa)]} (4), Th. 10.
(6) F {(ox f)A[l /y) /\(a)]} Ay (5), A5, Th. 1.
THEOREM 18. F[ --(X A a)].
Proof by Al, A5, and Theorem 1.
THEOREM 19. F [(Xo
Af) -a].
Propf by Theorem 14, A5, and Theorem 1.
THEOREM 20. The classical two-valued propositional calculus ("P") is a
subsystem of M*.
Proof by Theorems 1 and 17-19, which constitute analogues of Rosser's
formulation of P ([5], p. 55).
We may therefore use theorems of P.
THEOREM f)
21. F [(X (aqua - -)

(1) F [ 4)]dP.
(,B ha)(
(2) F [( r)q( n](1), Th. 15.
(3) F [o Th.
ma](2),
)( 3.
(4) F [(a - j) - (f - Pa)] (3), Th. 15.
(5) F f(,foc a-> %(,o0)4 A6.
(6) F (4), (5), Th. 13.
(7) F [( )(A 5, Th. 1.
4](6),

2. Equivalence with M. By AS and Theorems 15, 20 and 21, M*

contains as a subsystem Feys' system T ([3]), which was shown by Sobo-
cinski ([7], p. 173) to be equivalent with M. And it is a routine matter to
check (using e.g. the decision procedure of [1]) that all the axioms and rules
of M* hold also for M. Hence the systems are equivalent.

3. Independence of the schemata. Our A 1 and A2 are identical

with Simons' Hi and H2. The matrices he gives to show the independence
of the latter in his formulation of S3, also show the independence of the
former in M*. A3 is the only schema with three distinct variables, and is
therefore independent by Theorem 20 and a result of Diamond and McKin-
sey [2].

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:17:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 ALAN ROSS ANDERSON

To see that A4 is independent, consider the set of schemata A 1-3 and

A 5-6. Since A5 is the only schema of the form (o-* 6), we must
use A5 if we are to apply the primitive rule. But if we substitute any of the
schemata for o in A5, the rule yields only the same schema again. I.e.,
without A4, no theorems are forthcoming except the axiom schemata
themselves;* hence A4 is independent.
To see that A5 is independent, observe again that among A 1-4 and A6
there is only one schema of the form (o-* 6), namely A4. But only
A5 is of the form required for application, in conjunction with A4, of the
primitive rule. Hence without A5 no additional theorems are forthcoming,
and A5 is therefore independent.
Simons' matrix which shows his H6 to be independent in his formulation
of S3, also shows- our A6 to be independent in M*.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] A. R. ANDERSON, Improved decision procedures for Lewis's calculus 54 and von
Wright's calculus M, this JOURNAL, VOL. 19 (1954), pp. 201-214. (See also Correction
to a paper on modal logic, ibid., vol. 20 (1955), p. 150.)
[2] A. H. DIAMOND and J. C. C. MCKINSEY, Algebras and their subalgebras, Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 53 (1947), pp. 959-962.
[3] R. FEYS, Les logiques nouvelles des modalites, Revue neoscholastique de
philosophie, vol. 40 (1937), pp. 517-553 and vol. 41 (1938), pp. 217-252.
[4] J. C. C. MCKINSEY and A. TARSKI, Some theorems about the Lewis and Heyting
calculi, this JOURNAL, vol. 13 (1948), pp. 1-15.
[5] J. B. RosSER, Logic for mathematicians, New York, 1953.
[6] L. SIMONs, New axiomatizations of S3 and S4, this JOURNAL, Vo1. 18 (1953),
pp. 309-316.
[7] B. SOBOCII4SKI, Note on a modal system of Feys-von Wright, Journal of com-
puting systems, vol. 1 no. 3 (1953), pp. 171-178.
[8] G. H. VON WRIGHT, An essay in modal logic, Amsterdam, 1951.

YALE UNIVERSITY

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:17:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions