FOUNDATIONS OF
COMPUTER SCIENCE
Propositional logic
Natural Deduction
FORMAL PROOF SYSTEMS
• Last time we discussed formal proof systems in
general, together with the concepts of soundness
and completeness.
• In this lecture we will examine one such proof system,
natural deduction, in detail
• natural deduction is sound and complete for
propositional logic
FORMAL PROOFS
• Recall: syntax trees
• internal nodes labelled with operations (¬, ∧, ∨, →)
• leaves labelled with propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) or constant (⊥)
• Formal proofs in natural deduction (aka derivations or proof
trees) are different kinds of trees
• nodes labelled with formulas
• labels of each parent & its children correspond to particular proof rule
• leaves are assumptions traditionally drawn with leaves (assumptions) at
the top and the root (conclusion) at the bottom
3
PROOFS IN NATURAL
DEDUCTION
•A proof can be seen as a tree where
• leaves are assumptions
assumptions
• the root is the proved formula
• the internal nodes are determined by
applications of proof rules
• In natural deduction, proof rules
naturally fall into two classes
• introduction rules - allow the
introduction of a logical connective
• elimination rules - allow the rules
elimination of a logical connective
4
RULES OF NATURAL
DEDUCTION
RULES FOR CONJUNCTION
∧-introduction ∧-elimination
• one introduction rule, two elimination rules
6
RULES FOR IMPLICATION
→-introduction →-elimination
(modus ponens)
• one introduction rule, one elimination rule
7
EX (TRUSS 7.1 (1))
•A
proof in natural deduction of χ with assumptions φ∧ψ,
φ→(ψ→χ)
φ∧ψ φ∧ψ φ→(ψ→χ)
φ ψ ψ→χ
χ
8
EX (TRUSS 7.1 (1))
•A
proof in natural deduction of χ with assumptions φ∧ψ,
φ→(ψ→χ)
9
DISCHARGING ASSUMPTIONS
∧-introduction
1 2
→-introduction
1
10
Question
• Give a natural deduction proof of χ→φ∧ψ, using
assumptions χ→φ and χ→ψ
Answer
→-elimination
[χ]1 χ→ψ [χ]1 χ→φ (modus ponens)
→Ε →Ε
ψ φ
∧-introduction ∧Ι
φ∧ψ
→-introduction
→Ι1
χ→φ∧ψ
RULES FOR NEGATION
¬-introduction ¬-elimination
• sometimes ¬ φ is understood as shorthand for φ→⊥
13
RULES FOR DISJUNCTION
∨-elimination
∨-introduction
• two introduction rules, one elimination rule
14
RULES FOR ‘FALSE’
More on this later
• Note: the second rule is non-constructive: intuitionistic logic rules
it out.
15
SUMMARY - NATURAL DEDUCTION
This set of rules
will be given to you
in the exam
16
EX (TRUSS 7.1 (3))
• Proof of χ with assumptions ψ and (φ∧¬ψ)∨(φ∧χ )
17
Question
• Give a natural deduction proof of ¬ψ→¬φ, using
assumption φ→ψ
Answer
[¬ψ]
[φ]1 φ→ψ
→E [¬φ]
ψ [¬ψ]2
¬E
⊥
¬I1
¬φ
→Ι2
¬ψ→¬φ
RULES FOR ‘FALSE’
• Note: the second rule is non-constructive: intuitionistic logic rules
it out.
20
CLASSICAL VS
INTUITIONISTIC
φ ∨ ¬φ
Excluded middle
RAA (Reductio ad absurdum) (Tertium non datur)
• The two rules have the same power
• Using these rules can result in proofs where you prove that
something exists, but don’t know what it is.
Example
• Theorem. There exist irrational numbers p, q such that pq is rational.
• Proof. Consider √2 and (√2)√2. It is well-known that √2 is not
rational.
Now either (√2)√2 rational or it is not (excluded middle!). If it is rational
then we are finished: let p=q=√2. If not, let p=(√2)√2 and q=√2 .Then
pq is rational since
√2 √2
(√2 ) = (√2)√2×√2 = (√2)2 = 2.
So we proved what we wanted, but we still don’t know what p is!
PROPERTIES OF NATURAL
DEDUCTION
Question
• Recall that soundness is the statement
Γ ⊦ φ implies Γ ⊧ φ
Natural deduction is sound. Invent a proof rule that
is not sound.
Sketch answer
• Consider:
φ
¬φ
• Does it hold that Γ ⊦ φ implies Γ ⊧ φ ?
i.e. if with the above rule {φ} ⊦ ¬ φ does this imply that {φ} ⊧ ¬ φ ?
PROVING SOUNDNESS
• Proof(sketch): Induction on the length of the natural deduction proof
• eg. ∨-elimination
• assume that an assignment of truth values makes φ∨ψ true
• then one of φ or ψ is true
• in each case, use inductive hypothesis to get χ true
26
A PROOF AS A TREE
COMPLETENESS
• Completeness of a set of proof rules means that there are
“enough proof rules to prove all theorems, i.e. all true
statements”
• Completeness Theorem: Γ ⊧ φ implies Γ ⊦ φ
• Proof: out of scope, see Truss section 7.1.5
28
