Correctness of the antecedent rule in sequent calculus

  • Thread starter Thread starter matts0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correctness of the antecedent rule, or Weakening, in sequent calculus as described in H.-D. Ebbinghaus's "Mathematical Logic." The rule states that if a sequent with a set of formulas Γ is correct, then a sequent with a superset Γ' is also correct, provided every member of Γ is included in Γ'. A participant questions the validity of this when Γ' includes the negation of a formula Φ, suggesting there would be no interpretation that satisfies both Γ' and Φ simultaneously. Clarification is sought on how the rule holds in such cases, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the implications of the rule. The conversation highlights the complexity of interpreting the rule in specific scenarios.
matts0
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hi. I have a question on the correctness of the antecedent rule in sequent calculus when I read the book "mathematical logic" written by H.-D. Ebbinghaus etc.
The rule says:
\frac{\Gamma \phi}{\Gamma^' \phi} if every member of Γ is also a member of Γ' ( Γ⊂ Γ' ,where Γ and Γ' are formula sets and Φ is a formula)
and the correctness has been showed in the book (Γ'⊨Φ). So basically it means if the sequent in the numerator is correct, then we have sequent in the denominator being correct.

But since Γ'⊨Φ means that every interpretation which is a model of Γ' is also a model of Φ, what if we have Γ' = Γ ∪ ¬ Φ, then there shall be no interpertation that is a model of Γ' and Φ at the same time. Then how is it correct?
I think I have misunderstandings in some part, but I still don't know where it is.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If there is no model of Γ, ¬Φ, then trivially each model of Γ, ¬Φ is also a model of Φ.

Note that what you call "the antecedent rule" is normally called Weakening.
 
OK. Thanks a lot.
But it is still a little hard for me to understand that.
Is there any actual case for that?
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top