2
$\begingroup$

I got stuck trying to prove that statement. I am sorry if I got some terms wrong. I did my best to look for the equivalent terms in English, but I study in different language. So just to be on the same page, $Ded(\emptyset)$ is an inductive set such that its base is $B=A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$ and $$ A_1 = \{\alpha \rightarrow(\beta\rightarrow\alpha) \space\space | \space\space\alpha,\beta\in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}}\}\\ A_2 = \{(\alpha \rightarrow(\beta\rightarrow\gamma))\rightarrow((\alpha\rightarrow\beta)\rightarrow(\alpha\rightarrow\gamma))\space\space | \space\space\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}}\}\\ A_3=\{((\neg\beta)\rightarrow(\neg\alpha))\rightarrow(\alpha\rightarrow\beta) \space\space | \space\space\alpha,\beta\in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}}\} $$ And the inference rule is modus ponens and denoted by $MP(\alpha,\alpha\rightarrow\beta)=\beta$

This is how I started my proof:
Let $T$ be defined as follows $$ T=\{\alpha \in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}} \space\space| \space \text{there is a main connective in}\space\alpha\} $$ We can now show with structural induction that $Ded(\emptyset)\subseteq T$.

Base:
Let there be $\alpha \in B =A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$. Since all axioms have a main connective, indeed $\alpha\in T$. Therefore, $B\subseteq T$.

Inductive step:
Assume that $\alpha,\phi \in T$. Denote $\epsilon = MP(\alpha,\phi)$.
Let us look into separate cases:
• If there is no such $\beta\in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}}$ such that $\phi = \alpha\rightarrow\beta$, then $\epsilon = MP(\alpha,\phi)=\alpha$. Therefore $\epsilon\in T$.
• If there is $\beta\in WFF_{\{\neg, \rightarrow\}}$ such that $\phi = \alpha\rightarrow\beta$, then $\epsilon =MP(\alpha,\phi)= \beta$.

This is where I got stuck. I couldn't prove that $\beta\in T$, and the assumption didn't help me in this case. I would appreciate if someone could help me complete my proof.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I don't know why induction would get used to prove this.

Note that there exist two types of formulas. Propositional variables (assuming no truth value constants in the language) and formulas with a main connective. Now can we show that no formula in Ded(∅) is a propositional variable?

Well, suppose that some variable were in Ded(∅). But, then we have a consequence which is possibly false, and the distinction between truth and falsity would collapse in logic also, since we could deduce both a true proposition a false proposition. Can any formula in Ded(∅) possibly be false?

Well, if so, then this system would not be sound. So, I would prove it by first proving the soundness meta-theorem for this system, and then using the argument that every formula in Ded(∅) is thus a tautology. No variable is a tautology (otherwise we would have a contradiction with the definition of a tautology). And then it follows that every deducible formula has at least one connective.

It also holds that every formula in Ded(∅) with a ¬ symbol will also have a $\rightarrow$ symbol in it.

Edit: I'm also assuming that something like α→(β→α) is an abbreviation for (α→(β→α)), but this seems rather minor here.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ By soundness theorem, do you mean $\vdash \alpha \Rightarrow \models \alpha$ ? $\endgroup$
    – Zipzap
    Commented May 23, 2021 at 23:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Zipzap Yes.... $\endgroup$ Commented May 23, 2021 at 23:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .