DOCSLIB.ORG

Intermediate Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intermediate Logic Intermediate Logic Richard Zach Philosophy 310 Winter Term 2015 McGill University Intermediate Logic by Richard Zach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It is based on The Open Logic Text by the Open Logic Project, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 In- ternational License. Contents Prefacev I Sets, Relations, Functions1 1 Sets2 1.1 Extensionality ............................ 2 1.2 Subsets and Power Sets....................... 3 1.3 Some Important Sets......................... 5 1.4 Unions and Intersections...................... 5 1.5 Pairs, Tuples, Cartesian Products.................. 8 1.6 Russell’s Paradox .......................... 10 2 Relations 12 2.1 Relations as Sets ........................... 12 2.2 Special Properties of Relations................... 14 2.3 Equivalence Relations........................ 15 2.4 Orders................................. 16 2.5 Graphs................................. 18 2.6 Operations on Relations....................... 19 3 Functions 20 3.1 Basics ................................. 20 3.2 Kinds of Functions.......................... 22 3.3 Functions as Relations........................ 24 3.4 Inverses of Functions ........................ 25 3.5 Composition of Functions...................... 27 3.6 Partial Functions........................... 28 4 The Size of Sets 29 4.1 Introduction ............................. 29 4.2 Enumerations and Enumerable Sets................ 29 4.3 Cantor’s Zig-Zag Method...................... 33 i CONTENTS 4.4 Pairing Functions and Codes.................... 34 4.5 An Alternative Pairing Function.................. 35 4.6 Non-enumerable Sets ........................ 37 4.7 Reduction............................... 39 4.8 Equinumerosity ........................... 41 4.9 Sets of Different Sizes, and Cantor’s Theorem.......... 42 4.10 The Notion of Size, and Schroder-Bernstein¨ ........... 43 II First-Order Logic 44 5 Syntax and Semantics 45 5.1 Introduction ............................. 45 5.2 First-Order Languages........................ 46 5.3 Terms and Formulas......................... 48 5.4 Unique Readability ......................... 50 5.5 Main operator of a Formula..................... 52 5.6 Subformulas ............................. 53 5.7 Free Variables and Sentences.................... 54 5.8 Substitution.............................. 55 5.9 Structures for First-order Languages ............... 57 5.10 Covered Structures for First-order Languages.......... 58 5.11 Satisfaction of a Formula in a Structure.............. 59 5.12 Variable Assignments........................ 64 5.13 Extensionality ............................ 66 5.14 Semantic Notions .......................... 68 6 Theories and Their Models 70 6.1 Introduction ............................. 70 6.2 Expressing Properties of Structures ................ 72 6.3 Examples of First-Order Theories ................. 72 6.4 Expressing Relations in a Structure ................ 75 6.5 The Theory of Sets.......................... 76 6.6 Expressing the Size of Structures.................. 78 III Proofs and Completeness 80 7 The Sequent Calculus 81 7.1 Rules and Derivations........................ 81 7.2 Propositional Rules ......................... 82 7.3 Quantifier Rules ........................... 83 7.4 Structural Rules ........................... 83 7.5 Derivations.............................. 84 ii Contents 7.6 Examples of Derivations ...................... 86 7.7 Derivations with Quantifiers.................... 90 7.8 Proof-Theoretic Notions....................... 91 7.9 Derivability and Consistency.................... 93 7.10 Derivability and the Propositional Connectives......... 94 7.11 Derivability and the Quantifiers.................. 95 7.12 Soundness............................... 96 7.13 Derivations with Identity predicate . 101 7.14 Soundness with Identity predicate . 102 8 The Completeness Theorem 103 8.1 Introduction .............................103 8.2 Outline of the Proof .........................104 8.3 Complete Consistent Sets of Sentences . 106 8.4 Henkin Expansion..........................107 8.5 Lindenbaum’s Lemma........................109 8.6 Construction of a Model.......................110 8.7 Identity ................................112 8.8 The Completeness Theorem ....................114 8.9 The Compactness Theorem.....................115 8.10 A Direct Proof of the Compactness Theorem . 117 8.11 The Lowenheim-Skolem¨ Theorem . 118 8.12 Overspill ...............................119 IV Computability and Incompleteness 120 9 Recursive Functions 121 9.1 Introduction .............................121 9.2 Primitive Recursion .........................122 9.3 Composition .............................124 9.4 Primitive Recursion Functions...................125 9.5 Primitive Recursion Notations...................128 9.6 Primitive Recursive Functions are Computable . 128 9.7 Examples of Primitive Recursive Functions . 129 9.8 Primitive Recursive Relations ...................132 9.9 Bounded Minimization .......................134 9.10 Primes.................................135 9.11 Sequences...............................136 9.12 Trees..................................139 9.13 Other Recursions...........................140 9.14 Non-Primitive Recursive Functions . 141 9.15 Partial Recursive Functions.....................142 9.16 The Normal Form Theorem.....................144 iii CONTENTS 9.17 The Halting Problem.........................145 9.18 General Recursive Functions....................146 10 Arithmetization of Syntax 147 10.1 Introduction .............................147 10.2 Coding Symbols ...........................148 10.3 Coding Terms.............................150 10.4 Coding Formulas...........................151 10.5 Substitution..............................152 10.6 Derivations in LK . 153 11 Representability in Q 157 11.1 Introduction .............................157 11.2 Functions Representable in Q are Computable . 159 11.3 The Beta Function Lemma .....................160 11.4 Simulating Primitive Recursion ..................163 11.5 Basic Functions are Representable in Q . 164 11.6 Composition is Representable in Q . 167 11.7 Regular Minimization is Representable in Q . 168 11.8 Computable Functions are Representable in Q . 171 11.9 Representing Relations .......................172 11.10 Undecidability............................173 12 Incompleteness and Provability 174 12.1 Introduction .............................174 12.2 The Fixed-Point Lemma.......................175 12.3 The First Incompleteness Theorem . 177 12.4 Rosser’s Theorem ..........................179 12.5 Comparison with Godel’s¨ Original Paper . 181 12.6 The Derivability Conditions for PA . 181 12.7 The Second Incompleteness Theorem . 182 12.8 Lob’s¨ Theorem............................184 12.9 The Undefinability of Truth.....................187 Problems 189 Bibliography 200 iv Preface Formal logic has many applications both within philosophy and outside (es- pecially in mathematics, computer science, and linguistics). This second course will introduce you to the concepts, results, and methods of formal logic neces- sary to understand and appreciate these applications as well as the limitations of formal logic. It will be mathematical in that you will be required to master abstract formal concepts and to prove theorems about logic (not just in logic the way you did in Phil 210); but it does not presuppose any advanced knowledge of mathematics. We will begin by studying some basic formal concepts: sets, relations, and functions and sizes of infinite sets. We will then consider the language, seman- tics, and proof theory of first-order logic (FOL), and ways in which we can use first-order logic to formalize facts and reasoning abouts some domains ofin- terest to philosophers and logicians. In the second part of the course, we will begin to investigate the meta- theory of first-order logic. We will concentrate on a few central results: the completeness theorem, which relates the proof theory and semantics of first- order logic, and the compactness theorem and Lowenheim-Skolem¨ theorems, which concern the existence and size of first-order interpretations. In the third part of the course, we will discuss a particular way of mak- ing precise what it means for a function to be computable, namely, when it is recursive. This will enable us to prove important results in the metatheory of logic and of formal systems formulated in first-order logic: Godel’s¨ incom- pleteness theorem, the Church-Turing undecidability theorem, and Tarski’s theorem about the undefinability of truth. Week 1 (Jan 5, 7). Introduction. Sets and Relations. Week 2 (Jan 12, 14). Functions. Enumerability. Week 3 (Jan 19, 21). Syntax and Semantics of FOL. Week 4 (Jan 26, 28). Structures and Theories. Week 5 (Feb 2, 5). Sequent Calculus and Proofs in FOL. Week 6 (Feb 9, 12). The Completeness Theorem. v PREFACE Week 7 (Feb 16, 18). Compactness and Lowenheim-Skolem¨ Theorems Week 8 (Mar 23, 25). Recursive Functions Week 9 (Mar 9, 11). Arithmetization of Syntax Week 10 (Mar 16, 18). Theories and Computability Week 11 (Mar 23, 25). Godel’s¨ Incompleteness Theorems Week 12 (Mar 30, Apr 1). The Undefinability of Truth. Week 13, 14 (Apr 8, 13). Applications. vi Part I Sets, Relations, Functions 1 Chapter 1 Sets 1.1 Extensionality A set is a collection of objects, considered as a single object. The objects making up the set are called elements or members of the set. If x is an element of a set a, we write
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I0 and Rank-Into-Rank Axioms
    I0 and rank-into-rank axioms Vincenzo Dimonte∗ July 11, 2017 Abstract Just a survey on I0. Keywords: Large cardinals; Axiom I0; rank-into-rank axioms; elemen- tary embeddings; relative constructibility; embedding lifting; singular car- dinals combinatorics. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 03E55 (03E05 03E35 03E45) 1 Informal Introduction to the Introduction Ok, that’s it. People who know me also know that it is years that I am ranting about a book about I0, how it is important to write it and publish it, etc. I realized that this particular moment is still right for me to write it, for two reasons: time is scarce, and probably there are still not enough results (or anyway not enough different lines of research). This has the potential of being a very nasty vicious circle: there are not enough results about I0 to write a book, but if nobody writes a book the diffusion of I0 is too limited, and so the number of results does not increase much. To avoid this deadlock, I decided to divulge a first draft of such a hypothetical book, hoping to start a “conversation” with that. It is literally a first draft, so it is full of errors and in a liquid state. For example, I still haven’t decided whether to call it I0 or I0, both notations are used in literature. I feel like it still lacks a vision of the future, a map on where the research could and should going about I0. Many proofs are old but never published, and therefore reconstructed by me, so maybe they are wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Elementary Functions Part 1, Functions Lecture 1.6D, Function Inverses: One-To-One and Onto Functions
    Elementary Functions Part 1, Functions Lecture 1.6d, Function Inverses: One-to-one and onto functions Dr. Ken W. Smith Sam Houston State University 2013 Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 26 / 33 Function Inverses When does a function f have an inverse? It turns out that there are two critical properties necessary for a function f to be invertible. The function needs to be \one-to-one" and \onto". Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 27 / 33 Function Inverses When does a function f have an inverse? It turns out that there are two critical properties necessary for a function f to be invertible. The function needs to be \one-to-one" and \onto". Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 27 / 33 Function Inverses When does a function f have an inverse? It turns out that there are two critical properties necessary for a function f to be invertible. The function needs to be \one-to-one" and \onto". Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 27 / 33 Function Inverses When does a function f have an inverse? It turns out that there are two critical properties necessary for a function f to be invertible. The function needs to be \one-to-one" and \onto". Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 27 / 33 One-to-one functions* A function like f(x) = x2 maps two different inputs, x = −5 and x = 5, to the same output, y = 25. But with a one-to-one function no pair of inputs give the same output. Here is a function we saw earlier. This function is not one-to-one since both the inputs x = 2 and x = 3 give the output y = C: Smith (SHSU) Elementary Functions 2013 28 / 33 One-to-one functions* A function like f(x) = x2 maps two different inputs, x = −5 and x = 5, to the same output, y = 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Formal Logic II (3 Credit
    PHILOSOPHY 115 INTRODUCTION TO FORMAL LOGIC II BULLETIN INFORMATION PHIL 115 – Introduction to Formal Logic II (3 credit hrs) Course Description: Intermediate topics in predicate logic, including second-order predicate logic; meta-theory, including soundness and completeness; introduction to non-classical logic. SAMPLE COURSE OVERVIEW Building on the material from PHIL 114, this course introduces new topics in logic and applies them to both propositional and first-order predicate logic. These topics include argument by induction, duality, compactness, and others. We will carefully prove important meta-logical results, including soundness and completeness for both propositional logic and first-order predicate logic. We will also learn a new system of proof, the Gentzen-calculus, and explore first-order predicate logic with functions and identity. Finally, we will discuss potential motivations for alternatives to classical logic, and examine how those motivations lead to the development of intuitionistic logic, including a formal system for intuitionistic logic, comparing the features of that formal system to those of classical first-order predicate logic. ITEMIZED LEARNING OUTCOMES Upon successful completion of PHIL 115, students will be able to: 1. Apply, as appropriate, principles of analytical reasoning, using as a foundation the knowledge of mathematical, logical, and algorithmic principles 2. Recognize and use connections among mathematical, logical, and algorithmic methods across disciplines 3. Identify and describe problems using formal symbolic methods and assess the appropriateness of these methods for the available data 4. Effectively communicate the results of such analytical reasoning and problem solving 5. Explain and apply important concepts from first-order logic, including duality, compactness, soundness, and completeness 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism Monomorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the context of abstract algebra or universal algebra, a monomorphism is an injective homomorphism. A monomorphism from X to Y is often denoted with the notation . In the more general setting of category theory, a monomorphism (also called a monic morphism or a mono) is a left-cancellative morphism, that is, an arrow f : X → Y such that, for all morphisms g1, g2 : Z → X, Monomorphisms are a categorical generalization of injective functions (also called "one-to-one functions"); in some categories the notions coincide, but monomorphisms are more general, as in the examples below. The categorical dual of a monomorphism is an epimorphism, i.e. a monomorphism in a category C is an epimorphism in the dual category Cop. Every section is a monomorphism, and every retraction is an epimorphism. Contents 1 Relation to invertibility 2 Examples 3 Properties 4 Related concepts 5 Terminology 6 See also 7 References Relation to invertibility Left invertible morphisms are necessarily monic: if l is a left inverse for f (meaning l is a morphism and ), then f is monic, as A left invertible morphism is called a split mono. However, a monomorphism need not be left-invertible. For example, in the category Group of all groups and group morphisms among them, if H is a subgroup of G then the inclusion f : H → G is always a monomorphism; but f has a left inverse in the category if and only if H has a normal complement in G.
    [Show full text]
  • Intuitionistic Logic
    Intuitionistic Logic Nick Bezhanishvili and Dick de Jongh Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Intuitionism 3 3 Kripke models, Proof systems and Metatheorems 8 3.1 Other proof systems . 8 3.2 Arithmetic and analysis . 10 3.3 Kripke models . 15 3.4 The Disjunction Property, Admissible Rules . 20 3.5 Translations . 22 3.6 The Rieger-Nishimura Lattice and Ladder . 24 3.7 Complexity of IPC . 25 3.8 Mezhirov's game for IPC . 28 4 Heyting algebras 30 4.1 Lattices, distributive lattices and Heyting algebras . 30 4.2 The connection of Heyting algebras with Kripke frames and topologies . 33 4.3 Algebraic completeness of IPC and its extensions . 38 4.4 The connection of Heyting and closure algebras . 40 5 Jankov formulas and intermediate logics 42 5.1 n-universal models . 42 5.2 Formulas characterizing point generated subsets . 44 5.3 The Jankov formulas . 46 5.4 Applications of Jankov formulas . 47 5.5 The logic of the Rieger-Nishimura ladder . 52 1 1 Introduction In this course we give an introduction to intuitionistic logic. We concentrate on the propositional calculus mostly, make some minor excursions to the predicate calculus and to the use of intuitionistic logic in intuitionistic formal systems, in particular Heyting Arithmetic. We have chosen a selection of topics that show various sides of intuitionistic logic. In no way we strive for a complete overview in this short course. Even though we approach the subject for the most part only formally, it is good to have a general introduction to intuitionism.
    [Show full text]
  • Solutions to Homework Set 5
    MAT320/640, Fall 2020 Renato Ghini Bettiol Solutions to Homework Set 5 1. Decide if each of the statements below is true or false. If it is true, give a complete proof; if it is false, give an explicit counter-example. (Recall that a function f : X ! Y is called surjective, or onto, if every point of Y belongs to its image, that is, if f(X) = Y .) (a) There exists a continuous function f : R n f0g ! R. (b) There exists a continuous surjective function f : R n f0g ! R. (c) There exists a continuous function f : [0; 1] ! R. (d) There exists a continuous surjective function f : [0; 1] ! R. (e) The function f : R ! R, f(x) = x2, is uniformly continuous. (f) The function f : [0; 1] ! R, f(x) = x2, uniformly continuous. Solution: (a) TRUE: For example, any constant function f : R n f0g ! R is continuous; e.g., f(x) = 0 for all x 2 R n f0g. (b) TRUE: For example, consider the function f : R n f0g ! R given by ( x; if x < 0; f(x) = x − 1; if x > 0: Since the domain of f is R n f0g, it is continuous on its domain. Moreover, f is clearly surjective (draw its graph). (c) TRUE: For example, any constant function f : [0; 1] ! R is continuous; e.g., f(x) = 0 for all x 2 [0; 1]. (d) FALSE: Suppose, by contradiction, that such a function f : [0; 1] ! R exists. Since [0; 1] is compact and f : [0; 1] ! R is continuous, its image f([0; 1]) is compact.
    [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]
  • On the Intermediate Logic of Open Subsets of Metric Spaces Timofei Shatrov
    On the intermediate logic of open subsets of metric spaces Timofei Shatrov abstract. In this paper we study the intermediate logic MLO( ) of open subsets of a metric space . This logic is closely related to Medvedev’sX logic X of finite problems ML. We prove several facts about this logic: its inclusion in ML, impossibility of its finite axiomatization and indistinguishability from ML within some large class of propositional formulas. Keywords: intermediate logic, Medvedev’s logic, axiomatization, indistin- guishability 1 Introduction In this paper we introduce and study a new intermediate logic MLO( ), which we first define using Kripke semantics and then we will try to ratio-X nalize this definition using the concepts from prior research in this field. An (intuitionistic) Kripke frame is a partially ordered set (F, ). A Kripke model is a Kripke frame with a valuation θ (a function which≤ maps propositional variables to upward-closed subsets of the Kripke frame). The notion of a propositional formula being true at some point w F of a model M = (F,θ) is defined recursively as follows: ∈ For propositional letter p , M, w p iff w θ(p ) i i ∈ i M, w ψ χ iff M, w ψ and M, w χ ∧ M, w ψ χ iff M, w ψ or M, w χ ∨ M, w ψ χ iff for any w′ w, M, w ψ implies M, w′ χ → ≥ M, w 6 ⊥ A formula is true in a model M if it is true in each point of M. A formula is valid in a frame F if it is true in all models based on that frame.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Characterization of Injective and Surjective Functions and Group Homomorphisms
    A new characterization of injective and surjective functions and group homomorphisms ANDREI TIBERIU PANTEA* Abstract. A model of a function f between two non-empty sets is defined to be a factorization f ¼ i, where ¼ is a surjective function and i is an injective Æ ± function. In this note we shall prove that a function f is injective (respectively surjective) if and only if it has a final (respectively initial) model. A similar result, for groups, is also proven. Keywords: factorization of morphisms, injective/surjective maps, initial/final objects MSC: Primary 03E20; Secondary 20A99 1 Introduction and preliminary remarks In this paper we consider the sets taken into account to be non-empty and groups denoted differently to be disjoint. For basic concepts on sets and functions see [1]. It is a well known fact that any function f : A B can be written as the composition of a surjective function ! followed by an injective function. Indeed, f f 0 id , where f 0 : A Im(f ) is the restriction Æ ± B ! of f to Im(f ) is one such factorization. Moreover, it is an elementary exercise to prove that this factorization is unique up to an isomorphism: i.e. if f i ¼, i : A X , ¼: X B is 1 ¡ Æ ±¢ ! 1 ! another factorization for f , then we easily see that X i ¡ Im(f ) and that ¼ i ¡ f 0. The Æ Æ ± purpose of this note is to study the dual problem. Let f : A B be a function. We shall define ! a model of the function f to be a triple (X ,i,¼) made up of a set X , an injective function i : A X and a surjective function ¼: X B such that f ¼ i, that is, the following diagram ! ! Æ ± is commutative.
    [Show full text]
  • Intermediate Logic
    Intermediate Logic Richard Zach Philosophy 310 Winter Term 2015 McGill University Intermediate Logic by Richard Zach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It is based on The Open Logic Text by the Open Logic Project, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 In- ternational License. Contents Prefacev I Sets, Relations, Functions1 1 Sets2 1.1 Basics ................................. 2 1.2 Some Important Sets......................... 3 1.3 Subsets ................................ 4 1.4 Unions and Intersections...................... 5 1.5 Pairs, Tuples, Cartesian Products ................. 7 1.6 Russell’s Paradox .......................... 9 2 Relations 10 2.1 Relations as Sets........................... 10 2.2 Special Properties of Relations................... 11 2.3 Orders................................. 12 2.4 Graphs ................................ 14 2.5 Operations on Relations....................... 15 3 Functions 17 3.1 Basics ................................. 17 3.2 Kinds of Functions.......................... 19 3.3 Inverses of Functions ........................ 20 3.4 Composition of Functions ..................... 21 3.5 Isomorphism............................. 22 3.6 Partial Functions........................... 22 3.7 Functions and Relations....................... 23 4 The Size of Sets 24 4.1 Introduction ............................. 24 4.2 Enumerable Sets........................... 24 4.3 Non-enumerable Sets........................ 28 i CONTENTS 4.4 Reduction..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Proofs and Mathematical Reasoning
    Proofs and Mathematical Reasoning University of Birmingham Author: Supervisors: Agata Stefanowicz Joe Kyle Michael Grove September 2014 c University of Birmingham 2014 Contents 1 Introduction 6 2 Mathematical language and symbols 6 2.1 Mathematics is a language . .6 2.2 Greek alphabet . .6 2.3 Symbols . .6 2.4 Words in mathematics . .7 3 What is a proof? 9 3.1 Writer versus reader . .9 3.2 Methods of proofs . .9 3.3 Implications and if and only if statements . 10 4 Direct proof 11 4.1 Description of method . 11 4.2 Hard parts? . 11 4.3 Examples . 11 4.4 Fallacious \proofs" . 15 4.5 Counterexamples . 16 5 Proof by cases 17 5.1 Method . 17 5.2 Hard parts? . 17 5.3 Examples of proof by cases . 17 6 Mathematical Induction 19 6.1 Method . 19 6.2 Versions of induction. 19 6.3 Hard parts? . 20 6.4 Examples of mathematical induction . 20 7 Contradiction 26 7.1 Method . 26 7.2 Hard parts? . 26 7.3 Examples of proof by contradiction . 26 8 Contrapositive 29 8.1 Method . 29 8.2 Hard parts? . 29 8.3 Examples . 29 9 Tips 31 9.1 What common mistakes do students make when trying to present the proofs? . 31 9.2 What are the reasons for mistakes? . 32 9.3 Advice to students for writing good proofs . 32 9.4 Friendly reminder . 32 c University of Birmingham 2014 10 Sets 34 10.1 Basics . 34 10.2 Subsets and power sets . 34 10.3 Cardinality and equality .
    [Show full text]
  • Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra
    Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra George Metcalfe Mathematics Institute University of Bern Pisa Summer Workshop on Proof Theory 12-15 June 2012, Pisa George Metcalfe (University of Bern) Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra June2012,Pisa 1/107 Derivability vs Admissibility Consider a system defined by two rules: Nat(0) and Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(x)). The following rule is derivable: Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(s(x))). However, this rule is only admissible: Nat(s(x)) ⊲ Nat(x). But what if we add to the system: Nat(s(−1)) ??? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra June2012,Pisa 2/107 Derivability vs Admissibility Consider a system defined by two rules: Nat(0) and Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(x)). The following rule is derivable: Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(s(x))). However, this rule is only admissible: Nat(s(x)) ⊲ Nat(x). But what if we add to the system: Nat(s(−1)) ??? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra June2012,Pisa 2/107 Derivability vs Admissibility Consider a system defined by two rules: Nat(0) and Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(x)). The following rule is derivable: Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(s(x))). However, this rule is only admissible: Nat(s(x)) ⊲ Nat(x). But what if we add to the system: Nat(s(−1)) ??? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) Admissible Rules in Logic and Algebra June2012,Pisa 2/107 Derivability vs Admissibility Consider a system defined by two rules: Nat(0) and Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(x)). The following rule is derivable: Nat(x) ⊲ Nat(s(s(x))).
    [Show full text]