3
votes
2answers
92 views

Law of excluded middle. Do we need it in proofs?

Quite often when I am making a natural deduction proof, and I have no fixed idea on how to continue. I find myself thinking: "lets start with some form of the law of the excluded middle (LEM) and ...
3
votes
2answers
114 views

Model-theory and Proof-theory in Propositional Logic

I'm trying to link results of model theory and proof-theory in propositional language. Here i will use $\models$ to denote logical consequence, in the model-theory sense. Being $x,y$ two formulas of ...
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 ...
7
votes
4answers
169 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
140 views

Simple proof theory - Propositional Logic

When addressing the questions, which are featured below, I use the following definition and two lemmas. Definition: $\phi$ is a tautology if $[[\phi]]_{v}=1$ for all valuations $v$. Moreover, ...
0
votes
3answers
206 views

Qns on Propositional Logic - Inference Rules + Logical Equivalence

Have been working on this for the past 2 hours and still not getting any where. Any help will be much appreciated! Consider the following argument 1) p 2) p v q 3) q → (r → s) 4) t → r ∴¬s → ¬t ...
-1
votes
1answer
69 views

Epistemic disjunction, axiom or rule?

Assume I have a minimal logic |- with disjunction v and implication ->. Now I want to represent some domain knowledge. One opponent says I should represent it as an axiom: ...
2
votes
1answer
93 views

What is the difference between $Γ⊭Φ$ and $Γ⊭¬Φ$?

Did I understand this correctly? $Γ⊨Φ$ ($Φ$ is considered true) $Γ⊨¬Φ$ ($Φ$ is considered false) $Γ⊭Φ$ ($Φ$ is considered neither true nor false) $Γ⊭¬Φ$ ??? Please help me understand. How can ...
1
vote
1answer
338 views

proof of validity of tautology in first order logic

Every first-order logic formula which has a tautological shape in propositional logic is a valid formula. Will it be possible to give a formal proof for the above ? Thanks and Regards.