MHB Solving a Logic Proof: Existential Hypothesis Rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fumbles22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Proof
Fumbles22
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
This question is really getting on my nerves. It's 6i) from here:

View attachment 691

Right off the bat, it looks like they've thrown me a curveball. The fact that v does not occur free in \psi means that the Existential Hypothesis rule is going to need some care when applied.

I've come up with two possible proofs:

View attachment 692

..each in a different colour.

To me, the top proof looks more correct than the bottom. It's just the Existential Hypothesis rule that's throwing me.

For the first proof, I think line 10 is wrong. I need the existential hypothesis rule to depend on all the assumptions where v is free. This happens in lines 1,2 and MAYBE 3. If v is a free variable in line 3, then I'm sorted and everything is right. If it isn't, then I have a problem on my hands.

There's a similar problem for the second proof too.

Useful things:

The far left number show the assumptions a line depends on. The bracketed number is the line number and the far right column is the rules column.

As s = Assumption
UE = Universal Eradicator
Taut = Tautology
CP = Conditional Proposition
EH= Existential Hypothesis

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • img147_zps9abeca5b.jpg
    img147_zps9abeca5b.jpg
    80.5 KB · Views: 99
  • img148_zps85f59ff4.jpg
    img148_zps85f59ff4.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 86
Physics news on Phys.org
I think both proofs are fine. In the first proof, you just do some propositional reasoning, namely, deriving $\neg\psi$ from $\phi$ and $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$. In the second proof, this subderivation is contracted into one step because you can do arbitrary propositional reasoning in one step.

The restriction on EH, which derives some $\chi$ from $\exists v\,\theta$ and a subderivation of $\chi$ from $\theta$, is that $v$ can occur freely only in $\theta$: it cannot occur freely in $\chi$ nor in other open assumptions of $\chi$ except $\theta$. In your case, $\neg\psi$ has open assumptions $\forall x\,\phi$ and $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$. The variable $v$ occurs freely in $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$ but not in $\forall x\,\phi$ or $\neg\psi$. Therefore, the application of EH is justified.

Note that in natural deduction, inference rules come in pairs for every connective. For every connective *, there is *-introduction, whose conclusion has * as the top-level connective, and *-elimination, where one of the premises has * as the top-level connective. So the standard names for UE and EH are universal elimination and existential elimination, respectively. Universal Eradication sounds pretty radical! :)
 
Why is it that v occurs freely in ?

We know that v is bound in \(\psi\), so how do we know it's free here? \(\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi\)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fumbles said:
Why is it that v occurs freely in $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$?
Strictly speaking, v may not be free in that formula. When I said,

Evgeny.Makarov said:
In your case, $\neg\psi$ has open assumptions $\forall x\,\phi$ and $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$. The variable $v$ occurs freely in $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$ but not in $\forall x\,\phi$ or $\neg\psi$.

I was describing a typical case. If v occur free neither in $\phi$ nor in $\psi$, then this derivation reduces to propositional reasoning. But if v occurs free in $\phi$, then it also does in $\neg\phi\leftrightarrow\psi$. The point is that EH allows v to occur free in that formula, but not in $\neg\psi$ or other open assumptions of $\neg\psi$.
 
I think I get it. The Existential Hypothesis rule is quite hard compared to the others.

Universal Eradication sounds pretty radical!

When I was reading the page, I accidentally read "elimination" as "eradication". Since I was in learning mode, I remembered it as eradication. When I was writing the post I was thinking "it's elimination, not eradication" but then completely forgot at the key moment.

I've finally finished the sheet, which is why I'm a bit late posting this. On to Quantum Phenomena!

Thanks for your help emakarov!
 
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