Register to reply

Why is this false? - Short Fitch proof using Herbrand logic

by AmagicalFishy
Tags: fitch, herbrand, logic, proof
Share this thread:
Nov6-12, 07:23 PM
P: 48
Hello, folks.

I'm taking my first formal logic class and some of the things seem contradictory; I know it's because I'm not fully understanding something, but I don't know what I'm not fully understanding—I hope someone can help me. The problem begins:

Quote Quote by Problem
Let L2 be the language consisting of object constants a, b, a unary function constant f, and unary relation constants p, q.
For each of the following statements, state whether it is true or false under the language L2.
The statement I'm having trouble with is...

{ p(a), p(b), p(f(a)), p(f(b)) }⊢Fitch∀x.p(x)

... which I marked true. I'm able to prove that ∀x.p(x) while using only p(a) as a premise, even. The answer is false, and I'm told "p may not hold for terms like f(f(a)), f(f(b)), and so forth." But how could it not? Why would p(f(f(a))) not hold if ∀x.p(x)?

What I think of as I finish typing this that I'm misunderstanding what ⊢Fitch really means, which is "Prove using the Fitch system and no aspects of Herbrand logic." The only way to prove ∀x.p(x) is by using Universal Introduction and Elimination—which... is not encompassed by the provable operator ⊢Fitch?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on
Scientists develop 'electronic nose' for rapid detection of C. diff infection
Why plants in the office make us more productive
Tesla Motors dealing as states play factory poker
Nov6-12, 07:40 PM
P: 48
... is it because we can't (yet) explicitly prove the infinite possibilities presented by the infinitely-nesting function constants?
Nov7-12, 06:57 PM
P: 159
Quote Quote by AmagicalFishy View Post
I'm able to prove that ∀x.p(x) while using only p(a) as a premise, even.
No, you're not.

Nov7-12, 07:15 PM
P: 48
Why is this false? - Short Fitch proof using Herbrand logic

... ?
Unless you mean I can't prove it within L2, in which case I wouldn't have the slightest clue as to why—it'd be the same thing. Perhaps there's some implication intrinsic in the conclusion that I've yet to learn about.

Could you be... um... helpful when you next respond?
Nov8-12, 05:48 AM
P: 159
Universal Introduction doesn't work that way. Why on Earth would it follow from the fact that, say, P holds for the number 37 that P holds for all x? a and b are constants, not variables.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fitch style proof using Boolean introduction and elimination rules. Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 0
Short Proof of FLT Linear & Abstract Algebra 20
False proof Linear & Abstract Algebra 3
Using Logic ICs to make short pulses Electrical Engineering 7
Proof that, (1/0 = 1/0) is false. General Math 81