FOUNDATIONS OF

COMPUTER SCIENCE
Propositional logic
Natural Deduction
 FORMAL PROOF SYSTEMS
• Last time we discussed formal proof systems in
general, together with the concepts of soundness
and completeness.

• In this lecture we will examine one such proof system,

natural deduction, in detail

• natural deduction is sound and complete for

propositional logic
 FORMAL PROOFS

• Recall: syntax trees

• internal nodes labelled with operations (¬, ∧, ∨, →)
• leaves labelled with propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) or constant (⊥)

• Formal proofs in natural deduction (aka derivations or proof

trees) are different kinds of trees
• nodes labelled with formulas
• labels of each parent & its children correspond to particular proof rule
• leaves are assumptions traditionally drawn with leaves (assumptions) at
the top and the root (conclusion) at the bottom

3
 PROOFS IN NATURAL
DEDUCTION
•A proof can be seen as a tree where
• leaves are assumptions
assumptions
• the root is the proved formula

• the internal nodes are determined by

applications of proof rules
• In natural deduction, proof rules
naturally fall into two classes
• introduction rules - allow the
introduction of a logical connective
• elimination rules - allow the rules
elimination of a logical connective

4
RULES OF NATURAL
DEDUCTION
 RULES FOR CONJUNCTION

∧-introduction ∧-elimination

• one introduction rule, two elimination rules

6
 RULES FOR IMPLICATION
→-introduction →-elimination
(modus ponens)

• one introduction rule, one elimination rule

7
 EX (TRUSS 7.1 (1))

•A
proof in natural deduction of χ with assumptions φ∧ψ,
φ→(ψ→χ)

φ∧ψ φ∧ψ φ→(ψ→χ)

φ ψ ψ→χ
χ

8
 EX (TRUSS 7.1 (1))

•A
proof in natural deduction of χ with assumptions φ∧ψ,
φ→(ψ→χ)

9
DISCHARGING ASSUMPTIONS
∧-introduction

1 2

→-introduction
1

10
 Question

• Give a natural deduction proof of χ→φ∧ψ, using

assumptions χ→φ and χ→ψ
 Answer

→-elimination
[χ]1 χ→ψ [χ]1 χ→φ (modus ponens)
→Ε →Ε
ψ φ

∧-introduction ∧Ι

φ∧ψ
→-introduction

→Ι1
χ→φ∧ψ
 RULES FOR NEGATION
¬-introduction ¬-elimination

• sometimes ¬ φ is understood as shorthand for φ→⊥

13
 RULES FOR DISJUNCTION
∨-elimination
∨-introduction

• two introduction rules, one elimination rule

14
 RULES FOR ‘FALSE’
More on this later

• Note: the second rule is non-constructive: intuitionistic logic rules

it out.
15
SUMMARY - NATURAL DEDUCTION

This set of rules

will be given to you
in the exam
16
 EX (TRUSS 7.1 (3))
• Proof of χ with assumptions ψ and (φ∧¬ψ)∨(φ∧χ )

17
 Question

• Give a natural deduction proof of ¬ψ→¬φ, using

assumption φ→ψ
 Answer

[¬ψ]
[φ]1 φ→ψ
→E [¬φ]
ψ [¬ψ]2
¬E
⊥
¬I1
¬φ
→Ι2
¬ψ→¬φ
 RULES FOR ‘FALSE’

• Note: the second rule is non-constructive: intuitionistic logic rules

it out.
20
 CLASSICAL VS
INTUITIONISTIC

φ ∨ ¬φ
Excluded middle
RAA (Reductio ad absurdum) (Tertium non datur)

• The two rules have the same power

• Using these rules can result in proofs where you prove that
something exists, but don’t know what it is.
 Example

• Theorem. There exist irrational numbers p, q such that pq is rational.

• Proof. Consider √2 and (√2)√2. It is well-known that √2 is not

rational.

Now either (√2)√2 rational or it is not (excluded middle!). If it is rational

then we are finished: let p=q=√2. If not, let p=(√2)√2 and q=√2 .Then
pq is rational since

√2 √2
(√2 ) = (√2)√2×√2 = (√2)2 = 2.

So we proved what we wanted, but we still don’t know what p is!

PROPERTIES OF NATURAL
DEDUCTION
 Question

• Recall that soundness is the statement

Γ ⊦ φ implies Γ ⊧ φ

Natural deduction is sound. Invent a proof rule that

is not sound.
 Sketch answer

• Consider:
φ
¬φ

• Does it hold that Γ ⊦ φ implies Γ ⊧ φ ?

i.e. if with the above rule {φ} ⊦ ¬ φ does this imply that {φ} ⊧ ¬ φ ?
 PROVING SOUNDNESS

• Proof(sketch): Induction on the length of the natural deduction proof

• eg. ∨-elimination

• assume that an assignment of truth values makes φ∨ψ true

• then one of φ or ψ is true
• in each case, use inductive hypothesis to get χ true

26
A PROOF AS A TREE
 COMPLETENESS

• Completeness of a set of proof rules means that there are

“enough proof rules to prove all theorems, i.e. all true
statements”

• Completeness Theorem: Γ ⊧ φ implies Γ ⊦ φ

• Proof: out of scope, see Truss section 7.1.5

28