A proof in the Hilbert-style axiom system

In summary, the student is trying to find a proof of the homework statement (A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C) using the modus ponens and four axioms from propositional logic. However, they are not able to use the deduction theorem, and are having difficulty modifying their proofs to include the statement B \rightarrow S.
  • #1
PWiz
695
114

Homework Statement


Provide a complete formal proof that ## \vdash ((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C)
\rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)##.

Homework Equations


I am only allowed to use modus ponens and these four 'sentential logic' axioms:
A1 ## \neg \alpha \rightarrow (\alpha \rightarrow \beta)##
A2 ##\beta \rightarrow (\alpha \rightarrow \beta)##
A3 ##(\alpha \rightarrow \beta) \rightarrow ((\neg \alpha \rightarrow \beta) \rightarrow \beta)##
A4 ##(\alpha \rightarrow (\beta \rightarrow \gamma )) \rightarrow ((\alpha \rightarrow \beta) \rightarrow (\alpha \rightarrow \gamma ))##

The Attempt at a Solution


I have no idea where to begin. I'm thinking about using axiom 2, but I don't know how I would proceed from there. The problem would become easy if I was allowed to 'add an antecedent', but I am not allowed to directly do that. Any help is appreciated. Please note that I am a new student to logic, and I have only studied zero-order logic until now, so kindly provide hints that I will be able to understand. (The homework is due tomorrow!)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
These kind of proofs are much easier if you have the deduction theorem. What the deduction theorem says is that:

If you can prove [itex]Y[/itex] using [itex]X[/itex] as an axiom, then you can prove [itex]X \rightarrow Y[/itex]​

You don't have the deduction theorem, but you can use it as a strategy for finding the proof, as follows:

A proof of [itex]S[/itex] is a sequence of statements [itex]S_1, S_2, ..., S_n[/itex] such that each statement is either an axiom, or follows from two previous statements by modus ponens, and such that the last statement is [itex]S[/itex]. So:
  1. See if you can construct a proof of [itex]C[/itex] where the first statement is [itex](A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C[/itex] and the second statement is [itex]B[/itex]. So this original proof will have [itex]C[/itex] as its last sentence.
  2. Now, modify your proof as follows: Starting with the third statement, replace each statement [itex]S[/itex] by the modified statement [itex]B \rightarrow S[/itex]. Now, see if you can add additional steps so that you prove each modified statement without using [itex]B[/itex] as an axiom. After these modifications, you will have a proof where [itex]B \rightarrow C[/itex] is the last statement.
  3. Now, modify your proof again: Starting with the new third statement, replace each statement [itex]S[/itex] by the modified statement [itex]((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C) \rightarrow S[/itex]. Now, see if you can add additional steps so that you can prove each modified statement without using [itex](A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C[/itex] as an axiom. After these modifications, you will have a proof where [itex]((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)[/itex] is the last statement.
  4. Now, get rid of the first two statements, since you are no longer using them. Now you have a proof of [itex]((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow C) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow C)[/itex]
 
  • Like
Likes PWiz and Greg Bernhardt
  • #3
Thanks, I got it!
 

What is the Hilbert-style axiom system?

The Hilbert-style axiom system is a formal mathematical system used for proving theorems in logic and mathematics. It was developed by the mathematician David Hilbert in the early 20th century, and is based on a set of axioms and rules of inference.

What is a proof in the Hilbert-style axiom system?

A proof in the Hilbert-style axiom system is a step-by-step demonstration of the logical validity of a statement or theorem using the axioms and rules of inference. It involves starting with a set of initial assumptions and applying the rules of inference to arrive at a conclusion.

How is a proof in the Hilbert-style axiom system different from other proof methods?

The Hilbert-style axiom system is different from other proof methods, such as natural deduction or proof by contradiction, in that it is based on a formal system of axioms and rules of inference. This makes it more rigorous and less reliant on intuition, but also more complex and time-consuming.

What are the advantages of using the Hilbert-style axiom system?

The Hilbert-style axiom system allows for a systematic and rigorous approach to proving theorems in logic and mathematics. It also provides a foundation for other formal proof systems and has been influential in the development of modern mathematical logic.

Are there any limitations to the Hilbert-style axiom system?

Although the Hilbert-style axiom system is a powerful tool for proving theorems, it does have some limitations. It can be difficult and time-consuming to use, and may not be suitable for all types of mathematical or logical proofs. Additionally, it is based on a set of axioms which are assumed to be true, but may not be universally accepted.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top