- #1
darkchild
- 155
- 0
This is from a text on mathematical logic. The theorem to be proven (specialization):
If Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP, then Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] P(t/v), provided that P admits t for v.
My confusion concerns the use of modens ponens in the proof:
Suppose that Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP and P admits t for v. Then modus ponens applied to Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP and [itex]\vdash \forall[/itex]vP [itex]\rightarrow[/itex]P(t/v) (Axiom Scheme A5) gives Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] P(t/v).
I have never seen this before and do not understand how it is legal or exactly what it means to use modus ponens on statements containing Δ (a set of formulas used as premises) and [itex]vdash[/itex]. It seems the latter are simply ignored, yet they are crucial to the meaning of the statement.
If Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP, then Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] P(t/v), provided that P admits t for v.
My confusion concerns the use of modens ponens in the proof:
Suppose that Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP and P admits t for v. Then modus ponens applied to Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] [itex]\forall[/itex]vP and [itex]\vdash \forall[/itex]vP [itex]\rightarrow[/itex]P(t/v) (Axiom Scheme A5) gives Δ [itex]\vdash[/itex] P(t/v).
I have never seen this before and do not understand how it is legal or exactly what it means to use modus ponens on statements containing Δ (a set of formulas used as premises) and [itex]vdash[/itex]. It seems the latter are simply ignored, yet they are crucial to the meaning of the statement.