MHB Trouble with understanding section of FOL completeness proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter pooj4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Section
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Completeness Proof for First-Order Predicate Logic asserts that if $\Phi$ is a set of consistent $\mathcal L$-formulas, then $\Phi$ is satisfiable. The process involves transforming a consistent set $\Gamma$ into a maximally consistent set $\Gamma^*$ by adding either a formula $A$ or its negation $\neg A$ while maintaining consistency. An interpretation $I$ is defined where the domain consists of all closed terms, and it is shown that $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ for all formulas $A$. Key resources include Machover's "Set Theory, Logic and Their Limitations" and "The Open Logic Text" (Complete Build), which outlines the proof in section 19.2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of First-Order Predicate Logic
  • Familiarity with consistent and maximally consistent sets
  • Knowledge of interpretations in logic
  • Experience with induction proofs in mathematical logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the process of transforming a consistent set into a maximally consistent set
  • Learn about interpretations in First-Order Predicate Logic
  • Explore induction proofs specifically for logical formulas
  • Read section 19.2 of "The Open Logic Text" (Complete Build) for a structured outline of the completeness proof
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in mathematical logic, particularly those focusing on First-Order Predicate Logic, as well as educators looking to teach completeness proofs effectively.

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.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K