Is Modus Ponens Applicable in Logical Deductions Involving Quantifiers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter darkchild
  • Start date Start date
darkchild
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
P is a one-place predicate, t is a constant, v is a variable of P. P(t/v) denotes replacing v by t in P.

In the proof of a theorem, it is given that

Δ\vdash\forallvP.
(meaning \forallvP is deduced from the set of statements Δ.)

There exists an axiom scheme

\vdash\forall[/itex]vP\rightarrow(P(t/v).

Then modus ponens is applied to these two to prove that

Δ\vdashP(t/v).

I've never seen modus ponens applied to a deduction and it is used with so I scarcely know what to ask...how is this permissible? How does it work...same as regular modus ponens? Is there a proof that this is shows this is the same as modus ponens, or a definition that describes it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The axiom scheme should be

\vdash\forallv→P(t/v).

Also, the last paragraph of my original post should say "it is used without explanation, so I scarcely know what to ask." Meaning give me whatever relevant information you've got.
 
This is a day late and a dollar short since your question is from November but ...

I think the axiom scheme should be ∀vP→P(t/v) so we are given the following as premises:

∀vP
∀vP→P(t/v)

notice that this has the form
1. A
2. A→B

Modus ponens is the rule that says that given 1 and 2 we may infer B, i.e., P(t/v)
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top