Proof theory is an area of logic that studies proof as formal mathematical objects. For questions asking how to write proofs or for checking an informal proof, please use the proof-writing or proof-strategy tags instead.

learn more… | top users | synonyms

1
vote
2answers
82 views

Does generalization of axioms apply also to theorems?

In Enderton's book "A Mathematical Introduction to Logic" (second edition), he includes six axiom groups, and allows also for a generalization of those axioms such that if $\Psi$ is an axiom then ...
3
votes
4answers
84 views

Are geometric proofs less reliable than others?

When I submit a homework with a proof that uses a graph, ball, shape etc., most of the time the professors are not happy with them. They respond with a statement like: "The proof you made seems very ...
3
votes
1answer
65 views

Intuitionistic Linear Logic

I am currently going through some papers that use the "intuitionistic version" of Girard's Linear Logic. Problem is, i seem to find very little literature on it. There is a lot done on Linear Logic ...
0
votes
2answers
56 views

assuming the conclusion

A natural deduction proof goes from premmisses to conclusion, and under normal circumstances you will not assume the conclusion. Sometimes you may assume the negation of the conclusion and do some ...
3
votes
2answers
62 views

Double Negation is sequent calculus systems LK and LJ

In sequent calculus LK (see Gaisi Takeuti, Proof Theory (2nd ed - 1987)) we have a "standard" derivation of Double Negation in the form $\rightarrow \lnot \lnot A \supset A$. We have to start from an ...
8
votes
1answer
134 views

Can all theorems of $\sf ZFC$ about the natural numbers be proven in $\sf ZF$?

I know a proof of Hindman's theorem that uses ultrafilters on the natural numbers, and ultimately, the axiom of choice. But the theorem itself is essentially a combinatorial property of the natural ...
2
votes
1answer
62 views

Proof negation in Gentzen system

I am provided with the L¬ and R¬ Gentzen rules for negation (besides “Cut” rule and some rules for ⋀ and →): $${\Gamma\vdash\Delta,\varphi\over \Gamma,\lnot\varphi\vdash \Delta}\ L\lnot \\[4ex] ...
1
vote
1answer
66 views

If $\phi$ is $\Delta^{0}_{1}$ in the language of arithmetic, does Heyting Arithmetic prove $\forall x [\phi (x) \vee \neg \phi (x)]$?

PA is conservative over HA for $\Pi^{0}_{2}$ sentences. If $\phi$ is $\Delta^{0}_{1}$, then $\forall x [\phi (x) \vee \neg \phi (x)]$ is equivalent to a $\Pi^{0}_{2}$ sentence. Since PA trivially ...
1
vote
1answer
67 views

Infinitely many proofs?

While compiling a list of my favorite proofs of the infinitude of primes, the following came to mind; Proposition: There are infinitely many non-isomorphic proofs of the infinitude of primes. I'm ...
2
votes
1answer
60 views

Does second-order arithmetic (Z2) prove soundness and uniform reflection for first-order arithmetic (PA)?

(1) Does full second-order arithmetic (Z2) prove soundness and uniform reflection schemas for first-order arithmetic (PA)? That is, do we have for all formulas $\phi$: $$ \underset \phi \forall \; ...
4
votes
1answer
140 views

What are those “things that cannot be proved using only ordinary rules of inference”?

The online edition of the book Introduction to Logic by Michael Genesereth and Eric Kao, has a detail that left me confused. CHAPTER 4 [...] 4.2 Linear Proofs [...] The ...
1
vote
1answer
35 views

Probability of 2 identical events

My professor said that probability of 2 identical events in a very short amount of time (dt converges to 0) is 0. However, I did not agree with him about this. Is there a proof for that assertion? ...
6
votes
3answers
226 views

Give a proof that “p & ~p” implies “q”?

Context: This is not a textbook or homework problem. I was hoping you younger folks could help my tired old brain. "Everybody knows" a contradiction implies anything. What I'm looking for is a ...
1
vote
1answer
35 views

Introduction to functional interpretations

Any good recomendations for an introduction to functional interpretations? I understand this is a little vague but i haven't had much contact with the area. I am particularly interested in the ...
1
vote
3answers
30 views

Greatest Common Divisor written proof

Here is what I am trying to prove: Let $a,b,c,d \in ℤ_+$ with gcd$(a,b)=1$. If $a|c$ and $b|c$, prove that $ab|c$. Does the result hold if gcd $(a,b)\neq 1$ ? I know that gcd $(a,b)=1$ can be ...
0
votes
1answer
52 views

Help with positive- and negative-forms in Proof Theory

I need help in understanding a device used bu Kurt Schütte, Proof Theory (1977). In treating classical sentential calculus, he use - in place of truth-tables - the device of positive- and ...
2
votes
2answers
95 views

Proof for $\{p,p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r)\}\vdash (p\rightarrow q)\rightarrow r$ in HR

I can't find a for $\{p,p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r)\}\vdash (p\rightarrow q)\rightarrow r$ in HR HR is the following system: axioms: $A\rightarrow A$ $(A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow ((B\rightarrow ...
5
votes
2answers
299 views

Who stole the axioms in Natural Deduction?

The study of Gentzen's sequent calculus give me the opportunity to propose some reflections about the concept of logical truth. I'll refer to the english edition of Gentzen's works : The collected ...
1
vote
0answers
27 views

Girard's System $F$ (also named Polymorphism)

I have been studying Girard's Polymorphism and a question came to my mind: why is it (also) called system $F$? Where does the $F$ come from? (i searched it online but didn't get any luck...)
12
votes
3answers
382 views

On Pudlak's “Life in an Inconsistent World”

In his Logical Foundation of Mathematics and Computational Complexity (2013), Pavel Pudlak invites the readers to ponder about fictitious people whose natural numbers are nonstandard. His exposition ...
1
vote
1answer
47 views

Enumeration of proofs

Is it possible to enumerate short proofs of short statements, so as to make sure that, say, Goldbach's conjecture doesn't have one of those? How hard would it be? Is it being done? It's seems likely ...
1
vote
1answer
62 views

“Measure” of induction for cut-elimination in sequent calculus

I'm not very familiar with proof thoery, so I'm in trouble understanding different versions of the proof of the Cut-elimination Theorem for sequent calculus. In Sara Negri & Jan von Plato, ...
0
votes
0answers
42 views

Proof of $(\forall x. \varepsilon(x)) \Rightarrow \bot $ in $\lambda\pi $ calculus $\equiv$

What is the right representation of the proof of $(\forall x. \varepsilon(x)) \Rightarrow \bot $ in simple type theory as a term of $\lambda\pi $ calculus $\equiv$? Note on notation: The epsilon ...
1
vote
2answers
60 views

Restrictive Rules for LK System

I have a question regarding the restrictive nature of $\forall(R)$ and $\exists(L)$ rules in sequent calculus LK. I don't really understand why the restrictions exists in the first place, so why: $$ ...
3
votes
1answer
53 views

A problem about sequent calculus for classical logic

In Sara Negri & Jan von Plato, Structural Proof Theory (2001), page 51, various properties of the system G3cp of classical propositional logic are showed. Theorem 3.1.1 [page 49] proves that all ...
7
votes
1answer
106 views

Proof-theoretic characterization of the primitive recursive functions?

The total recursive functions are exactly those number-theoretic functions that can be represented by a $\Sigma_1$ formula of first-order arithmetic. Is there a similar characterization of the ...
0
votes
1answer
45 views

Proofs with binary trees [duplicate]

Now I have a binary tree which is How would I go about proving binary tree with $n$ leaves has exactly $2 n - 1$ nodes ?
0
votes
2answers
48 views

Unique set of inference rules for a deductive system?

I have the impression that for a deduction system there are many sets of inference rules to describe it. Simple example, the inference rules for (classical or intuitionistic, this is not the matter) ...
0
votes
1answer
60 views

Is this deduction in normal form?

Definition: A deduction is in normal form if there is no formula which is a conclusion of an introduction rule and the main premise of the elimination rule of the same connective. So, in a natural ...
2
votes
2answers
73 views

Natural Deduction rules for $\lnot$ in classical and intuitionstic logic

Following the very useful answer by Peter Smith to my prevoius post , I'm still reflecting about the "imperfection" connected with the Intro- ans Elim-rules for $\lnot$ in Natural Deduction (I mean ...
1
vote
1answer
37 views

On provability within minimal logic

In its most naive form my question boils down to this: when is a proposition that is provable "by contradiction" also provable "directly"? IOW, is it possible to know, a priori, that a ...
0
votes
3answers
155 views

Using rules of inference (Leibniz) to prove theorems.

Leibniz: If $A \equiv B$ is a theorem, then so is $C[p:= A] \equiv C[p:= B]$. Note: p is "fresh" means p doesn't occur in $A, B, C$. I am trying to understand how to use Leibniz rule of inference for ...
5
votes
4answers
379 views

What is the “correct” reading of $\bot$?

I have some doubts about the "natural" interpretation of $\bot$ in Natural Deduction and sequent calculus. In Prawitz (1965) $\bot$ (falsehood or absurdity) is called a sentential constant [page 14] ...
1
vote
2answers
72 views

A question about consistent fragments of formalized mathematical theories with Natural Deduction

In Dag Prawitz, Natural Deduction A Proof-Theoretical Study (1965), we have the system I of intuitionistic (first-order) logic based on eleven introduction- and elimination-rules : the 3 couples for ...
3
votes
2answers
229 views

How to prove consistency of Natural Deduction systems

In Dag Prawitz, Natural Deduction A Proof-Theoretical Study (1965), we have the system I of intuitionistic (first-order) logic based on eleven introduction- and elimination-rules : the 3 couples for ...
0
votes
2answers
140 views

What are some good introductory books on mathematical proofs?

There was a time when I avoided math proofs, but now I am starting to enjoy them. I am taking Intro to Linear Algebra and am falling in love with proofs. Are there any introduction to mathematical ...
3
votes
0answers
43 views

Using an automatic tool for checking geometric conjectures

I do a lot of research about squares, and I thought of using some automatic tool for proving / disproving some geometric conjectures. As a simple example, consider the following Square coloring ...
0
votes
1answer
58 views

Prove by Hilbert deduction: ⊢∃x(AvB)→(∃xAv∃xB); ⊢(∃xAv∃xB)→∃x(AvB)

I'd really like your help proving: 1)⊢∃x(AvB)→(∃xAv∃xB) 2)⊢(∃xAv∃xB)→∃x(AvB) Our proof system contains next Hilbert's axioms: 1.A→(B→A) 2.(A→B)→((A→(B→X))→(A→X)) 3.(A&B)→A 4.(A&B)→B ...
3
votes
1answer
116 views

Non-self-referential undecidable sentences in arithmetic

Are there any known undecidable sentences for PA are neither "self-referential" (like a sentence equivalent to its own nonprovability) nor imply consistency of PA (like in the Paris Harrington ...
0
votes
1answer
96 views

Proof by contradiction: May I assume $P$ (true) in $\neg Q \land P \Rightarrow P \land \neg P$ to prove $Q$ by contradiction

Suppose I wish to do a proof by contradiction the statement $Q$. In proving $Q$ may I assume $\neg Q \land P$ (where $P$ is a statement known to be true) and show the implication $\neg Q \land P ...
3
votes
2answers
100 views

Probabilistic “proof” that a sentence is provable (proof “density”).

Is it possible to (or even useful) to calculate the probability that a certain statement is provable? I had this idea that any two statements say A and B could be compared to each other by comparing ...
91
votes
11answers
11k views

Do we know if there exist true mathematical statements that can not be proven?

Given the set of standard axioms (I'm not asking for proof of those), do we know for sure that a proof exists for all unproven theorems? For example, I believe the Goldbach Conjecture is not proven ...
1
vote
0answers
52 views

What is the proof-theoretic strength of the predicative second-order theory of real numbers?

The first-order theory of real numbers, AKA the theory of real closed fields, is obtained by added to the axioms for ordered fields an axiom schema of completeness, which states that for each formula ...
4
votes
2answers
136 views

About theorem's proof length in propositional calculus

In PC(propositional calculus) system, how long will a formula's proof be? That is to say if there exists a computable function $f$ such that for any formula $A$, if $\vdash_{\mathrm{PC}}A$ then $A$ ...
2
votes
1answer
66 views

Is it possible to prove $p\rightarrow\diamond (p\land q)$ in modal logic?

I need to prove $p\rightarrow\diamond (p\land q)$ in B axiomatic, which contains next conversion rules: 1.$(p\land q)\rightarrow(q\land p)$ 2.$(q\land p)\rightarrow p$ 3.$p\rightarrow(p\land p)$ ...
7
votes
4answers
164 views

How or why does intutionistic logic proof negations from within the theory, constructively?

I'm having a little of a cognitive dissonance why, in intuitionistic logic, it's possible to show stentences like $(\neg A \land \neg B) \implies \neg(A\lor B).$ In plain text: If 'A isn't true' as ...
0
votes
2answers
44 views

Why this first-order logic formula is not correct?

I'm studing computer science at university, in specific Artificial Intelligence. We are using Otter as Theorem prover. I'm having some problems formalizing this: "John, Mary and Derek are three ...
5
votes
2answers
104 views

Is every proof for natural numbers equivalent to an induction proof?

The other day I had the following idea: Suppose one could show that a theorem for natural numbers is not provable by induction for all $n$, in other words, there do not exist useful induction steps ...
2
votes
0answers
53 views

How much arithmetic can Predicative Second-Order EFA do?

As discussed in this MathOverflow question, I'm trying to find what the result would be of applying a Feferman-Scutte-like analysis to the predicativism of Edward Nelson and Charles Parsons, who ...
2
votes
2answers
113 views

How can we define infinitary proofs?

In the first order logic the usual notion of a formal proof for a sentence $\sigma$ from a theory $T$ is a "finite" sequence ($<\omega$ - sequeance) of sentences which each one of them is a valid ...