DOCSLIB.ORG

Formal Proof—Getting Started Freek Wiedijk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Formal Proof—Getting Started Freek Wiedijk Formal Proof—Getting Started Freek Wiedijk A List of 100 Theorems On the webpage [1] only eight entries are listed for Today highly nontrivial mathematics is routinely the first theorem, but in [2p] seventeen formaliza- being encoded in the computer, ensuring a reliabil- tions of the irrationality of 2 have been collected, ity that is orders of a magnitude larger than if one each with a short description of the proof assistant. had just used human minds. Such an encoding is When we analyze this list of theorems to see called a formalization, and a program that checks what systems occur most, it turns out that there are such a formalization for correctness is called a five proof assistants that have been significantly proof assistant. used for formalization of mathematics. These are: Suppose you have proved a theorem and you want to make certain that there are no mistakes proof assistant number of theorems formalized in the proof. Maybe already a couple of times a mistake has been found and you want to make HOL Light 69 sure that that will not happen again. Maybe you Mizar 45 fear that your intuition is misleading you and want ProofPower 42 to make sure that this is not the case. Or maybe Isabelle 40 you just want to bring your proof into the most Coq 39 pure and complete form possible. We will explain all together 80 in this article how to go about this. Although formalization has become a routine Currently in all systems together 80 theorems from activity, it still is labor intensive. Using current this list have been formalized. We expect to get to technology, a formalization will be roughly four 99 formalized theorems in the next few years, but times the size of a corresponding informal LATEX Fermat’s Last Theorem is the 33rd entry of the list proof (this ratio is called the de Bruijn factor), and therefore it will be some time until we get to and it will take almost a full week to formalize a 100. single page from an undergraduate mathematics If we do not look for quantity but for quality, textbook. the most impressive formalizations up to now are: The first step towards a formalization of a proof Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem: by consists of deciding which proof assistant to use. Natarajan Shankar using the proof assis- For this it is useful to know which proof assistants tant nqthm in 1986, by Russell O’Connor have been shown to be practical for formalization. using Coq in 2003, and by John Harrison On the webpage [1] there is a list that keeps track of using HOL Light in 2005. the formalization status of a hundred well-known Jordan Curve Theorem: by Tom Hales us- theorems. The first few entries on that list appear ing HOL Light in 2005, and by Artur in Table 1. Korniłowicz using Mizar in 2005. Freek Wiedijk is lecturer in computer science at the Rad- Prime Number Theorem: by Jeremy Avigad boud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. His email using Isabelle in 2004 (an elementary proof address is [email protected]. by Atle Selberg and Paul Erdös), and by 1408 Notices of the AMS Volume 55, Number 11 theorem number of systems in which the theorem has been formalized p 1. The Irrationality of 2 ≥ 17 2. Fundamental Theorem of Algebra 4 3. The Denumerability of the Rational Numbers 6 4. Pythagorean Theorem 6 5. Prime Number Theorem 2 6. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem 3 7. Law of Quadratic Reciprocity 4 8. The Impossibility of Trisecting the Angle and Doubling the Cube 1 9. The Area of a Circle 1 10. Euler’s Generalization of Fermat’s Little Theorem 4 11. The Infinitude of Primes 6 12. The Independence of the Parallel Postulate 0 13. Polyhedron Formula 1 … … Table 1. The start of the list of 100 theorems [1]. John Harrison using HOL Light in 2008 (a express all abstract mathematics though. Another proof using the Riemann zeta function). disadvantage of HOL is that the proof parts of Four-Color Theorem: by Georges Gonthier the HOL scripts are unreadable. They can only be using Coq in 2004. understood by executing them on the computer. All but one of the systems used for these four Mizar on the other hand allows one to write theorems are among the five systems that we listed. abstract mathematics very elegantly, and its scripts This again shows that currently these are the most are almost readable like ordinary mathematics. interesting for formalization of mathematics. Also Mizar has by far the largest library of already Here are the proof styles that one finds in these formalized mathematics (currently it is over 2 systems: million lines). However, Mizar has the disadvantage that it is not possible for a user to automate proof assistant proof style of the system recurring proof patterns, and the proof automation HOL Light procedural provided by the system itself is rather basic. Also, Mizar declarative in Mizar it is difficult to express the formulas of ProofPower procedural calculus in a recognizable style. It is not possible Isabelle both possible to “bind” variables, which causes expressions for Coq procedural constructions like sums, limits, derivatives, and A declarative system is one in which one writes integrals to look unnatural. a proof in the normal way, although in a highly stylized language and with very small steps. For The Example: Quadratic Reciprocity this reason a declarative formalization resembles In this article we will look at two formalizations of program source code more than ordinary mathe- a specific theorem. For this we will take the Law of matics. In a procedural system one does not write Quadratic Reciprocity, the seventh theorem from proofs at all. Instead one holds a dialogue with the the list of a hundred theorems. This theorem has computer. In that dialogue the computer presents thus far been formalized in four systems: by David the user with proof obligations or goals, and the Russinoff using nqthm in 1990, by Jeremy Avigad user then executes tactics, which reduce a goal to using Isabelle in 2004, by John Harrison using HOL zero or more new, and hopefully simpler, subgoals. Light in 2006, and by Li Yan, Xiquan Liang, and Proof in a procedural system is an interactive game. Junjie Zhao using Mizar in 2007. In this paper we will show HOL Light as the When I was a student, my algebra professor example of a procedural system, and Mizar as the Hendrik Lenstra always used to say that the Law of example of a declarative system. Quadratic Reciprocity is the first nontrivial theorem The main advantage of HOL Light is its elegant that a student encounters in the mathematics cur- architecture, which makes it a very powerful and riculum. Before this theorem, most proofs can be reliable system. A proof of the correctness of the found without too much trouble by expanding the 394 line HOL Light “logical core” even has been definitions and thinking hard. In contrast the Law formalized. On the other hand HOL has the disad- of Quadratic Reciprocity is the first theorem that vantage that it sometimes cannot express abstract is totally unexpected. It was already conjectured mathematics—mostly when it involves algebraic by Euler and Legendre, but was proved only by the structures—in an attractive way. It can essentially “Prince of Mathematicians”, Gauss, who called it December 2008 Notices of the AMS 1409 the Golden Theorem and during his lifetime gave 1 eight different proofs of it. 2 p The Law of Quadratic Reciprocity relates whether 1 px qy 2 q an odd prime p is a square modulo an odd prime − ≤ − q, to whether q is a square modulo p. The theorem 0 says that these are equivalent unless both p and q qy < 0 − are 3 modulo 4, in which case they have opposite px < 1 q < px truth values. There also are two supplements to 2 − the Law of Quadratic Reciprocity, which say that − 1 p < qy 1 2 −1 is a square modulo an odd prime p if and only 2 − qy px 1 p if p ≡ 1 (mod 4), and that 2 is a square modulo an − ≤ − 2 odd prime p if and only if p ≡ ±1 (mod 8). 0 1 1 q The Law of Quadratic Reciprocity is usually 2 2 phrased using the Legendre symbol. A number a is called a quadratic residue modulo p if there HOL Light exists an x such that x2 ≡ a (mod p). The Legendre Suppose that we select HOL Light as our proof symbol a for a coprime to p then is defined by assistant. The second step will be to download and p install the system. This does not take long. First ! ( download the ocaml compiler from [5] and install a 1 if a is a quadratic residue modulo p = it. Next download the tar.gz file with the current p −1 otherwise: version of the HOL Light sources from [6] and unpack it. Then follow the installation instructions Using the Legendre symbol, the Law of Quadratic in the README file. If you use Linux or Mac OS X, all Reciprocity can be written as: you will need to do is type “make”. Under Windows, installation is a bit more involved: you will have to ! ! p q p−1 q−1 copy the “pa_j_….ml” file that corresponds to your = (−1) 2 2 q p version of ocaml as given by “ocamlc -version” to a file called “pa_j.ml”, and then compile that copy The right hand side will be −1 if and only if both p using one of the two “ocamlc -c” commands that and q are 3 (mod 4).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classical First-Order Logic Software Formal Verification
    Classical First-Order Logic Software Formal Verification Maria Jo~aoFrade Departmento de Inform´atica Universidade do Minho 2008/2009 Maria Jo~aoFrade (DI-UM) First-Order Logic (Classical) MFES 2008/09 1 / 31 Introduction First-order logic (FOL) is a richer language than propositional logic. Its lexicon contains not only the symbols ^, _, :, and ! (and parentheses) from propositional logic, but also the symbols 9 and 8 for \there exists" and \for all", along with various symbols to represent variables, constants, functions, and relations. There are two sorts of things involved in a first-order logic formula: terms, which denote the objects that we are talking about; formulas, which denote truth values. Examples: \Not all birds can fly." \Every child is younger than its mother." \Andy and Paul have the same maternal grandmother." Maria Jo~aoFrade (DI-UM) First-Order Logic (Classical) MFES 2008/09 2 / 31 Syntax Variables: x; y; z; : : : 2 X (represent arbitrary elements of an underlying set) Constants: a; b; c; : : : 2 C (represent specific elements of an underlying set) Functions: f; g; h; : : : 2 F (every function f as a fixed arity, ar(f)) Predicates: P; Q; R; : : : 2 P (every predicate P as a fixed arity, ar(P )) Fixed logical symbols: >, ?, ^, _, :, 8, 9 Fixed predicate symbol: = for \equals" (“first-order logic with equality") Maria Jo~aoFrade (DI-UM) First-Order Logic (Classical) MFES 2008/09 3 / 31 Syntax Terms The set T , of terms of FOL, is given by the abstract syntax T 3 t ::= x j c j f(t1; : : : ; tar(f)) Formulas The set L, of formulas of FOL, is given by the abstract syntax L 3 φ, ::= ? j > j :φ j φ ^ j φ _ j φ ! j t1 = t2 j 8x: φ j 9x: φ j P (t1; : : : ; tar(P )) :, 8, 9 bind most tightly; then _ and ^; then !, which is right-associative.
    [Show full text]
  • AMATH 731: Applied Functional Analysis Lecture Notes
    AMATH 731: Applied Functional Analysis Lecture Notes Sumeet Khatri November 24, 2014 Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................... v List of Theorems ................................................ ix List of Definitions ................................................ xii Preface ....................................................... xiii 1 Review of Real Analysis .......................................... 1 1.1 Convergence and Cauchy Sequences...............................1 1.2 Convergence of Sequences and Cauchy Sequences.......................1 2 Measure Theory ............................................... 2 2.1 The Concept of Measurability...................................3 2.1.1 Simple Functions...................................... 10 2.2 Elementary Properties of Measures................................ 11 2.2.1 Arithmetic in [0, ] .................................... 12 1 2.3 Integration of Positive Functions.................................. 13 2.4 Integration of Complex Functions................................. 14 2.5 Sets of Measure Zero......................................... 14 2.6 Positive Borel Measures....................................... 14 2.6.1 Vector Spaces and Topological Preliminaries...................... 14 2.6.2 The Riesz Representation Theorem........................... 14 2.6.3 Regularity Properties of Borel Measures........................ 14 2.6.4 Lesbesgue Measure..................................... 14 2.6.5 Continuity Properties of Measurable Functions...................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Theorems from Geometry 2321, 2322
    List of Theorems from Geometry 2321, 2322 Stephanie Hyland [email protected] April 24, 2010 There’s already a list of geometry theorems out there, but the course has changed since, so here’s a new one. They’re in order of ‘appearance in my notes’, which corresponds reasonably well to chronolog- ical order. 24 onwards is Hilary term stuff. The following theorems have actually been asked (in either summer or schol papers): 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30 a), 31 (associative only), 35, 36 a), 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48. Definitions are also asked, which aren’t included here. 1. On a finite-dimensional real vector space, the statement ‘V is open in M’ is independent of the choice of norm on M. ′ f f i 2. Let Rn ⊃ V −→ Rm be differentiable with f = (f 1, ..., f m). Then Rn −→ Rm, and f ′ = ∂f ∂xj f 3. Let M ⊃ V −→ N,a ∈ V . Then f is differentiable at a ⇒ f is continuous at a. 4. f = (f 1, ...f n) continuous ⇔ f i continuous, and same for differentiable. 5. The chain rule for functions on finite-dimensional real vector spaces. 6. The chain rule for functions of several real variables. f 7. Let Rn ⊃ V −→ R, V open. Then f is C1 ⇔ ∂f exists and is continuous, for i =1, ..., n. ∂xi 2 2 Rn f R 2 ∂ f ∂ f 8. Let ⊃ V −→ , V open. f is C . Then ∂xi∂xj = ∂xj ∂xi 9. (φ ◦ ψ)∗ = φ∗ ◦ ψ∗, where φ, ψ are maps of manifolds, and φ∗ is the push-forward of φ.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10: Symbolic Trails and Formal Proofs of Validity, Part 2
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine CHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2 Introduction In the previous chapter there were many frustrating signs that something was wrong with our formal proof method that relied on only nine elementary rules of validity. Very simple, intuitive valid arguments could not be shown to be valid. For instance, the following intuitively valid arguments cannot be shown to be valid using only the nine rules. Somalia and Iran are both foreign policy risks. Therefore, Iran is a foreign policy risk. S I / I Either Obama or McCain was President of the United States in 2009.1 McCain was not President in 2010. So, Obama was President of the United States in 2010. (O v C) ~(O C) ~C / O If the computer networking system works, then Johnson and Kaneshiro will both be connected to the home office. Therefore, if the networking system works, Johnson will be connected to the home office. N (J K) / N J Either the Start II treaty is ratified or this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, if the Start II treaty is not ratified, this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. R v ~W / ~R ~W 1 This or statement is obviously exclusive, so note the translation. 427 If the light is on, then the light switch must be on. So, if the light switch in not on, then the light is not on. L S / ~S ~L Thus, the nine elementary rules of validity covered in the previous chapter must be only part of a complete system for constructing formal proofs of validity.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus I – Math
    Math 380: Low-Dimensional Topology Instructor: Aaron Heap Office: South 330C E-mail: [email protected] Web Page: http://www.geneseo.edu/math/heap Textbook: Topology Now!, by Robert Messer & Philip Straffin. Course Info: We will cover topological equivalence, deformations, knots and links, surfaces, three- dimensional manifolds, and the fundamental group. Topics are subject to change depending on the progress of the class, and various topics may be skipped due to time constraints. An accurate reading schedule will be posted on the website, and you should check it often. By the time you take this course, most of you should be fairly comfortable with mathematical proofs. Although this course only has multivariable calculus, elementary linear algebra, and mathematical proofs as prerequisites, students are strongly encouraged to take abstract algebra (Math 330) prior to this course or concurrently. It requires a certain level of mathematical sophistication. There will be a lot of new terminology you must learn, and we will be doing a significant number of proofs. Please note that we will work on developing your independent reading skills in Mathematics and your ability to learn and use definitions and theorems. I certainly won't be able to cover in class all the material you will be required to learn. As a result, you will be expected to do a lot of reading. The reading assignments will be on topics to be discussed in the following lecture to enable you to ask focused questions in the class and to better understand the material. It is imperative that you keep up with the reading assignments.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Theorems in Mathematics
    SOME FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS IN MATHEMATICS OLIVER KNILL Abstract. An expository hitchhikers guide to some theorems in mathematics. Criteria for the current list of 243 theorems are whether the result can be formulated elegantly, whether it is beautiful or useful and whether it could serve as a guide [6] without leading to panic. The order is not a ranking but ordered along a time-line when things were writ- ten down. Since [556] stated “a mathematical theorem only becomes beautiful if presented as a crown jewel within a context" we try sometimes to give some context. Of course, any such list of theorems is a matter of personal preferences, taste and limitations. The num- ber of theorems is arbitrary, the initial obvious goal was 42 but that number got eventually surpassed as it is hard to stop, once started. As a compensation, there are 42 “tweetable" theorems with included proofs. More comments on the choice of the theorems is included in an epilogue. For literature on general mathematics, see [193, 189, 29, 235, 254, 619, 412, 138], for history [217, 625, 376, 73, 46, 208, 379, 365, 690, 113, 618, 79, 259, 341], for popular, beautiful or elegant things [12, 529, 201, 182, 17, 672, 673, 44, 204, 190, 245, 446, 616, 303, 201, 2, 127, 146, 128, 502, 261, 172]. For comprehensive overviews in large parts of math- ematics, [74, 165, 166, 51, 593] or predictions on developments [47]. For reflections about mathematics in general [145, 455, 45, 306, 439, 99, 561]. Encyclopedic source examples are [188, 705, 670, 102, 192, 152, 221, 191, 111, 635].
    [Show full text]
  • Math 025-1,2 List of Theorems and Definitions Fall 2010
    Math 025-1,2 List of Theorems and Definitions Fall 2010 Here are the 19 theorems of Math 25: Domination Law (aka Monotonicity Law) If f and g are integrable functions on [a; b] such that R b R b f(x) ≤ g(x) for all x 2 [a; b], then a f(x) dx ≤ a g(x) dx. R b Positivity Law If f is a nonnegative, integrable function on [a; b], then a f(x) dx ≥ 0. Also, if f(x) is R b a nonnegative, continuous function on [a; b] and a f(x) dx = 0, then f(x) = 0 for all x 2 [a; b]. Max-Min Inequality If f(x) is an integrable function on [a; b], then Z b (min value of f(x) on [a; b]) · (b − a) ≤ f(x) dx ≤ (max value of f(x) on [a; b]) · (b − a): a Triangle Inequality (for Integrals) Let f :[a; b] ! R be integrable. Then Z b Z b f(x) dx ≤ jf(x)j dx: a a Mean Value Theorem for Integrals Let f : R ! R be continuous on [a; b]. Then there exists a number c 2 (a; b) such that 1 Z b f(c) = f(x) dx: b − a a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (one part) Let f :[a; b] ! R be continuous and define F : R x [a; b] ! R by F (x) = a f(t) dt. Then F is differentiable (hence continuous) on [a; b] and F 0(x) = f(x). Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (other part) Let f :[a; b] ! R be continuous and let F be any antiderivative of f on [a; b].
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof
    Logic and Proof Computer Science Tripos Part IB Michaelmas Term Lawrence C Paulson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge [email protected] Copyright c 2000 by Lawrence C. Paulson Contents 1 Introduction and Learning Guide 1 2 Propositional Logic 3 3 Proof Systems for Propositional Logic 12 4 Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams 19 5 First-order Logic 22 6 Formal Reasoning in First-Order Logic 29 7 Clause Methods for Propositional Logic 34 8 Skolem Functions and Herbrand’s Theorem 42 9 Unification 49 10 Applications of Unification 58 11 Modal Logics 65 12 Tableaux-Based Methods 70 i ii 1 1 Introduction and Learning Guide This course gives a brief introduction to logic, with including the resolution method of theorem-proving and its relation to the programming language Prolog. Formal logic is used for specifying and verifying computer systems and (some- times) for representing knowledge in Artificial Intelligence programs. The course should help you with Prolog for AI and its treatment of logic should be helpful for understanding other theoretical courses. Try to avoid getting bogged down in the details of how the various proof methods work, since you must also acquire an intuitive feel for logical reasoning. The most suitable course text is this book: Michael Huth and Mark Ryan, Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems (CUP, 2000) It costs £18.36 from Amazon. It covers most aspects of this course with the ex- ception of resolution theorem proving. It includes material that may be useful in Specification and Verification II next year, namely symbolic model checking.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus I ​ Teacher(S): Mr
    Remote Learning Packet NB: Please keep all work produced this week. Details regarding how to turn in this work will be forthcoming. April 20 - 24, 2020 Course: 11 Calculus I ​ Teacher(s): Mr. Simmons ​ Weekly Plan: ​ Monday, April 20 ⬜ Revise your proof of Fermat’s Theorem. Tuesday, April 21 ⬜ Extreme Value Theorem proof and diagram. Wednesday, April 22 ⬜ Diagrams for Fermat’s Theorem, Rolle’s Theorem, and the MVT Thursday, April 23 ⬜ Prove Rolle’s Theorem. Friday, April 24 ⬜ Prove the MVT. Statement of Academic Honesty I affirm that the work completed from the packet I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, my is mine and that I completed it independently. child completed this work independently _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Student Signature Parent Signature Monday, April 20 I would like to apologize, because in the list of theorems that I sent you, there was a typo. In the hypotheses for two of the theorems, there were written nonstrict inequalities, but they should have been strict inequalities. I have corrected this in the new version. If you have felt particularly challenged by these proofs, that’s okay! I hope that this is an opportunity for you not to memorize a method and execute it perfectly, but rather to be challenged and to struggle with real mathematical problems. I highly encourage you to come to office hours (virtually) to ask questions about these problems. And feel free to email me as well! This week’s handout is a rewriting of those same theorems, along with one more, the Extreme Value Theorem. I apologize for all the changes, but I - along with the rest of you - am still adjusting to this new setup.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Mathematics
    Foundations of Mathematics Fall 2019 ii Contents 1 Propositional Logic 1 1.1 The basic definitions . .1 1.2 Disjunctive Normal Form Theorem . .3 1.3 Proofs . .4 1.4 The Soundness Theorem . 11 1.5 The Completeness Theorem . 12 1.6 Completeness, Consistency and Independence . 14 2 Predicate Logic 17 2.1 The Language of Predicate Logic . 17 2.2 Models and Interpretations . 19 2.3 The Deductive Calculus . 21 2.4 Soundness Theorem for Predicate Logic . 24 3 Models for Predicate Logic 27 3.1 Models . 27 3.2 The Completeness Theorem for Predicate Logic . 27 3.3 Consequences of the completeness theorem . 31 4 Computability Theory 33 4.1 Introduction and Examples . 33 4.2 Finite State Automata . 34 4.3 Exercises . 37 4.4 Turing Machines . 38 4.5 Recursive Functions . 43 4.6 Exercises . 48 iii iv CONTENTS Chapter 1 Propositional Logic 1.1 The basic definitions Propositional logic concerns relationships between sentences built up from primitive proposition symbols with logical connectives. The symbols of the language of predicate calculus are 1. Logical connectives: ,&, , , : _ ! $ 2. Punctuation symbols: ( , ) 3. Propositional variables: A0, A1, A2,.... A propositional variable is intended to represent a proposition which can either be true or false. Restricted versions, , of the language of propositional logic can be constructed by specifying a subset of the propositionalL variables. In this case, let PVar( ) denote the propositional variables of . L L Definition 1.1.1. The collection of sentences, denoted Sent( ), of a propositional language is defined by recursion. L L 1. The basis of the set of sentences is the set PVar( ) of propositional variables of .
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4
    Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4 Jeremy Avigad, Robert Y. Lewis, and Floris van Doorn Sep 10, 2021 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Mathematical Proof ............................................ 1 1.2 Symbolic Logic .............................................. 2 1.3 Interactive Theorem Proving ....................................... 4 1.4 The Semantic Point of View ....................................... 5 1.5 Goals Summarized ............................................ 6 1.6 About this Textbook ........................................... 6 2 Propositional Logic 7 2.1 A Puzzle ................................................. 7 2.2 A Solution ................................................ 7 2.3 Rules of Inference ............................................ 8 2.4 The Language of Propositional Logic ................................... 15 2.5 Exercises ................................................. 16 3 Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic 17 3.1 Derivations in Natural Deduction ..................................... 17 3.2 Examples ................................................. 19 3.3 Forward and Backward Reasoning .................................... 20 3.4 Reasoning by Cases ............................................ 22 3.5 Some Logical Identities .......................................... 23 3.6 Exercises ................................................. 24 4 Propositional Logic in Lean 25 4.1 Expressions for Propositions and Proofs ................................. 25 4.2 More commands ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 8 Hilbert Proof Systems, Formal Proofs, Deduction Theorem
    CHAPTER 8 Hilbert Proof Systems, Formal Proofs, Deduction Theorem The Hilbert proof systems are systems based on a language with implication and contain a Modus Ponens rule as a rule of inference. They are usually called Hilbert style formalizations. We will call them here Hilbert style proof systems, or Hilbert systems, for short. Modus Ponens is probably the oldest of all known rules of inference as it was already known to the Stoics (3rd century B.C.). It is also considered as the most "natural" to our intuitive thinking and the proof systems containing it as the inference rule play a special role in logic. The Hilbert proof systems put major emphasis on logical axioms, keeping the rules of inference to minimum, often in propositional case, admitting only Modus Ponens, as the sole inference rule. 1 Hilbert System H1 Hilbert proof system H1 is a simple proof system based on a language with implication as the only connective, with two axioms (axiom schemas) which characterize the implication, and with Modus Ponens as a sole rule of inference. We de¯ne H1 as follows. H1 = ( Lf)g; F fA1;A2g MP ) (1) where A1;A2 are axioms of the system, MP is its rule of inference, called Modus Ponens, de¯ned as follows: A1 (A ) (B ) A)); A2 ((A ) (B ) C)) ) ((A ) B) ) (A ) C))); MP A ;(A ) B) (MP ) ; B 1 and A; B; C are any formulas of the propositional language Lf)g. Finding formal proofs in this system requires some ingenuity. Let's construct, as an example, the formal proof of such a simple formula as A ) A.
    [Show full text]