*forall x: Pittsburgh* systems

Natural Deduction in the This document gives a short description of how Carnap presents the
systems of natural deduction from *forall x:
Pittsburgh*, the
remix by Dimitri Gallow of Aaron Thomas-Bolduc and Richard Zach's
Calgary version of P.D. Magnus's *forall x*.

The syntax of formulas accepted is described in the Systems Reference.

## Truth-functional logic

### Notation

The different admissible keyboard abbreviations for the different connectives are as follows:

Connective | Keyboard |
---|---|

→ | `->` , `=>` , `>` |

∧ | `/\` , `&` , `and` |

∨ | `\/` , `|` , `or` |

↔︎ | `<->` , `<=>` |

¬ | `-` , `~` , `not` |

⊥ | `!?` , `_|_` |

The available sentence letters are *A* through *Z*, together with the
infinitely many subscripted letters *P*_{1}, *P*_{2}, … written `P_1, P_2`

and so on.

Proofs consist of a series of lines. A line is either an assertion
line containing a formula followed by a `:`

and then a justification
for that formula, or a separator line containing two dashes, thus:
`--`

. A justification consists of a rule abbreviation followed by zero
or more numbers (citations of particular lines) and pairs of numbers
separated by a dash (citations of a subproof contained within the
given line range).

A subproof is begun by increasing the indentation level. The first
line of a subproof should be more indented than the containing proof,
and the lines directly contained in this subproof should maintain this
indentation level. (Lines indirectly contained, by being part of a
sub-sub-proof, will need to be indented more deeply.) The subproof
ends when the indentation level of the containing proof is resumed;
hence, two contiguous sub-proofs of the same containing proof can be
distinguished from one another by inserting a separator line between
them at the same level of indentation as the containing proof. The
final *unindented* line of a derivation will serve as the conclusion
of the entire derivation.

Here's an example derivation, using the system `.GallowSL`

:

Or, `.GallowSLPlus`

with a Fitch-style guides overlay (activated with
`guides="fitch"`

):

Simple indent guides overlay (activated with `guides="indent"`

) with
system `.GallowPL`

:

### The SL systems

The system `.GallowSLPlus`

allows all rules below. `.GallowSL`

is like
`.GallowSLPlus`

except it *disallows* all derived rules, i.e., the
only allowed rules are `R`

, and the I and E rules for the connectives
and for ⊥.

It has the following set of rules for direct inferences:

Basic rules:

Rule | Abbreviation | Premises | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|

And-Elim. | `∧E` |
φ ∧ ψ |
φ/ψ |

And-Intro. | `∧I` |
φ, ψ |
φ ∧ ψ |

Or-Intro | `∨I` |
φ/ψ |
φ ∨ ψ |

Contradiction-Intro | `⊥I` |
φ, ¬φ |
⊥ |

Contradiction-Elim | `⊥E` |
⊥ | ψ |

Biconditional-Elim | `↔︎E` |
φ/ψ, φ ↔︎ ψ |
ψ/φ |

Reiteration | `R` |
φ |
φ |

Derived rules:

Rule | Abbreviation | Premises | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|

Disjunctive Syllogism | `DS` |
¬ψ/¬φ, φ ∨ ψ |
φ/ψ |

Modus Tollens | `MT` |
φ → ψ, ¬ψ |
¬φ |

Double Negation Elim. | `DNE` |
¬¬φ |
φ |

DeMorgan's Laws | `DeM` |
¬(φ ∧ ψ) |
¬φ ∨ ¬ψ |

¬(φ ∨ ψ) |
¬φ ∧ ¬ψ |
||

¬φ ∨ ¬ψ |
¬(φ ∧ ψ) |
||

¬φ ∧ ¬ψ |
¬(φ ∨ ψ) |

We also have five rules for indirect inferences:

`→I`

, which justifies an assertion of the form*φ*→*ψ*by citing a subproof beginning with the assumption*φ*and ending with the conclusion*ψ*;`↔︎I`

, which justifies an assertion of the form*φ*↔︎*ψ*by citing two subproofs, beginning with assumptions*φ*,*ψ*, respectively, and ending with conclusions*ψ*,*φ*, respectively;`¬I`

, which justifies an assertion of the form ¬*φ*by citing a subproof beginning with the assumption*φ*and ending with a conclusion ⊥.`∨E`

, which justifies an assertion of the form φ by citing a disjunction*ψ*∨*χ*and two subproofs beginning with assumptions*ψ*,*χ*respectively and each ending with the conclusion*φ*.`¬E`

(indirect proof), which justifies an assertion of the form*φ*by citing a subproof beginning with the assumption ¬*φ*and ending with a conclusion ⊥.`LEM`

(Law of the Excluded Middle), which justifies an assertion of the form*ψ*by citing two subproofs beginning with assumptions*φ*, ¬*φ*respectively and each ending with the conclusion*ψ*. LEM is a derived rule.

Finally, `PR`

can be used to justify a line asserting a premise, and
`AS`

can be used to justify a line making an assumption. A note about
the reason for an assumption can be included in the rendered proof by
writing `A/NOTETEXTHERE`

rather than `AS`

for an assumption.
Assumptions are only allowed on the first line of a subproof.

## Predicate logic

There are two proof systems corresponding to the Pittsburgh remix of
*forall x*. All of them allow sentence letters in first-order
formulas. The available relation symbols are the same as for SL: *A*
through *Z*, together with the infinitely many subscripted letters
*F*_{1}, *F*_{2}, … written `F_1, F_2`

etc. However, the available
constants and function symbols are only *a* through *v*, together with
the infinitely many subscripted letters *c*_{1}, *c*_{2}, … written
`c_1, c_2,…`

. The available variables are *w* through *z*, with the
infinitely many subscripted letters *x*_{1}, *x*_{2}, … written `x_1, x_2,…`

.

Connective | Keyboard |
---|---|

∀ | `A` , `@` |

∃ | `E` , `3` |

The predicate logic system `.GallowPL`

of *forall x: Pittsburgh* extend the
rules of the system `.GallowSL`

with the following set of new
basic rules:

Rule | Abbreviation | Premises | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|

Existential Introduction | `∃I` |
φ(σ) |
∃xφ(x) |

Universal Elimination | `∀E` |
∀xφ(x) |
φ(σ) |

Universal Introduction | `∀E` |
φ(σ) |
∀xφ(x) |

Where Universal Introduction is subject to the restriction that *σ* must not
appear in *φ*(*x*), or any undischarged assumption or in any premise of the
proof.^{1}

There is one new rule for indirect derivations: `∃E`

, which justifies
an assertion *ψ* by citing an assertion of the form ∃*x**φ*(*x*) and a
subproof beginning with the assumption *φ*(*σ*) and ending with the
conclusion *ψ*, where *σ* does not appear in *ψ*, ∃*x**φ*(*x*), or in any of
the undischarged assumptions or premises of the proof.

The proof system `.GallowPLPlus`

for the Pittsburgh version of *forall x*
adds, in addition to the (basic and derived) rules of `.GallowPL`

, the
rules

Rule | Abbreviation | Premises | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|

Conversion of Quantifiers | `CQ` |
¬∀xφ(x) |
∃x¬φ(x) |

∃x¬φ(x) |
¬∀xφ(x) |
||

¬∃xφ(x) |
∀x¬φ(x) |
||

∀x¬φ(x) |
¬∃xφ(x) |

Technically, Carnap checks only the assumptions and premises that are used in the derivation of

*φ*(*σ*). This has the same effect in terms of what's derivable, but is a little more lenient.↩︎