You are on page 1of 14

# Proofs in Predicate Logic

A rule of inference applies only if the main operator of the line is the right main operator.

So if the line is a simple statement, with a quantifier as the main operator, no rule of inference can be applied (except AD).

New Rules:

For removing quantifiers or For introducing quantifiers

so the main operator is now the “>. The quantifier tells you how to read the occurrences of “x” inside the parentheses. Bound Variables (x) (Px > Cx) Here the “x” in “Px” and in “Cx” is bound (governed/ regulated) by the quantifier out front.” which means it is not bound or controlled by anything that determines its meaning. The value of a statement form like this is: that the quantifier is gone. you can’t read this statement form. ” So now rules like MP and MT might be applied.Free Variables Px > Cx Here the “x” is called “free. it doesn’t really say anything. . In a sense.

will be justified. and making it into a universal statement. we know it came from a universal statement before – this is important because it means that adding a universal quantifier to such a statement form. So only A and E statements can be rewritten with free variables. . So whenever we see a free variable. (UI).Free variables can only result from invoking the rule called Universal Instantiation.

Universal statements can be instantiated in two ways: To free variables Or to constants. Ra > ~Ba If Adam’s a rabbit. he’s not a bear. etc. she’s not a bear Rc > ~Bc If Colbert’s a rabbit. he’s not a bear Rb > ~Bb If Betty’s a rabbit. “b” for Betty. (x) (Rx > ~Bx) Rx > ~Bx This is a free variable No rabbits are bears Let “a” stand for Adam. .

or Colbert. so you can spell out inferences about them. If your conclusion is about Adam. . so you can return to the universal level of predication.How do we know which to instantiate to: the free variable or the constant? It depends on where you are trying to go: If your conclusion is a universal statement. you’ll want to instantiate quantified statements to their names. chances are you want the free variable instantiation. or Eve.

and he’s a man. because all men are.2 Given the conclusion (not a universal statement) there is nothing to be gained by instantiation to a free variable. . obviously. he’s mortal Socrates is mortal 4 Os MP 3. 1 (x) (Mx > Ox) 2 Ms / Os 3 Ms > Os UI 1 If Socrates is a man. the instantiated sentence has to be about Aristotle’s teacher’s teacher.Socrates must be mortal.

Universal Instantiation UI (x) Fx Fx or (x) Fx Fa .

Since you can’t encounter a statement that looks like this: Cx > Bx unless… Unless UI has been done to a universal that was already given or proven to be true… It will be legitimate to GENERALIZE from such a statement. To Generalize is to predicate at the level of the Universal UG: Fx (x) Fx But this would not be valid: HG Fa . Ga / (x) (Fx . Gx) .

Rx) / (Эx) ~Vx 3 Cc . so some people who are running for president are not viable candidates.5 EG 6 . and he’s running If Colbert’s a comedian. 1 (x) (Cx > ~ Vx) 2 Эx (Cx . Rc 4 Cc > ~Vc 5 Cc EI 2 UI 1 SM 3 Colbert’s a comedian.Instantiation and Generalization for Existential Statements EI and EG No comedians are viable candidates for president. but some comedians are running. he’s not viable Colbert’s a comedian Colbert’s not viable At least one candidate is not viable (some candidates are not viable) 6 ~Vc 7 (Эx) ~Vx MP 4.

EI has an important restriction: You cannot use a constant in an EI line if that constant has already been in play in the proof. So the rule EI is: (Эx) Fx ---------Fa (where “a” is new) This means that if you have to instantiate twice (see previous slide) you must do the EI before you do the UI. even in the premises. . There are no restrictions on UI.

There are no restrictions on EG: you can generalize to a “Some” statement from either a constant. or from a free variable. Fa (Эx) Fx or Fx (Эx) Fx .

Ba or Ax . Bx) ------------------Ax .UI --Universal Instantiation (x) (Ax > Bx) --------------------Ax > Bx or Aa > Ba Instantiate to a free variable or to a name. EI --Existential Instantiation Not allowed: (Зx) (Ax . Restriction: The name must be a new name EG --Existential Generalization Aa . Ba Only instantiate to a name. Bx --------------------(Зx) (Ax . Bx) Generalize to a particular from a name or a free variable. . Bx (Зx) (Ax . Bx) -----------------Aa . UG --Universal Generalization Ax > Bx not allowed: Aa > Ba ------------------------(x) (Ax > Bx) (x) (Ax > Bx) Generalize to a universal only from a free variable.

1 (x) [(Ax v Px) > Gx] 2 (Ax v Px) > Gx 3 Px 4 Ax v Px 5 Gx ACP AD. 4 / (x) (Px > Gx) UI 1 6 Px > Gx 7 (x) (Px > Gx) CP 3-5 UG 6 . so pears grow on trees.Apples and pears grow on trees. CM 3 MP 2.

Only philosophers are logicians. SM UI 3 5 Lf > Pf 6 Pf > Tf 7 Lf 8 Pf 12 Lr > Tr 13 Lr 14 Tr HS 10. 13 UI 4 SM 2 MP 5. 11 CM. Lr / Tf . 8 15 Tf . 1 (x) (Lx > Px) . and anyone who's a philosopher is a thinker. Tr 10 Lr > Pr 11 Pr > Tr UI UI 3 4 (x) (Lx > Px) 1 SM (x) (Px > Tx) 1 CM. SM 2 MP 12. Tr CN 9. 14 . Frege and Russell are logicians. so they're also thinkers. 7 9 Tf MP 6. (x) (Px > Tx) 2 3 4 Lf .