MHB Trouble with understanding section of FOL completeness proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter pooj4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Section
pooj4
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
The Completeness Proof for First-Order Predicate Logic depends on if $\Phi$ is a
set of consistent $\mathcal L$-formulas, then $\Phi$ is satisfiable.

How is that constructed? There are a large number of Lemmas working from Machover's text Set theory, Logic and Their Limitations but I'm having trouble with which are most relevant and how it comes together.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first step is to turn a consistent set $\Gamma$ into maximally consistent set $\Gamma^*$, i.e.., for each formula $A$ add either $A$ or $\neg A$ to $\Gamma$ in a way that preserves consistency. Then one defines an interpretation $I$ where the domain is the set of all closed terms and $I\models P(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ if $P(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in\Gamma^*$. Finally one proves that $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ for all formulas $A$, not just atomic. Therefore $I\models\Gamma^*$ and in particular $I\models\Gamma$ since $\Gamma\subseteq\Gamma^*$.

I recommend starting with the last step. Try proving $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ by induction on $A$ and see what this requires of $\Gamma^*$. Some steps go through for an arbitrary $\Gamma^*$; others require properties like completeness or existential completeness, which are ensures by the lemmas you mentioned. Also the book "The Open Logic Text" (Complete Build) has an outline of the proof in section 19.2.
 
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...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Back
Top