Natural deduction in the forall x: Calgary systems
This document gives a short description of how Carnap presents the systems of natural deduction from forall x: Calgary, the remix by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc and Richard Zach of Tim Button's Cambridge version of P.D. Magnus's forall x.
The systems supported come in two versions, with slightly different rules and different syntax in the first-order part: those for versions of the book before Fall 2019, and those for the Fall 2019 edition and after. The versions for the pre-2019 editions are practically the same as the systems in Tim Button's forall x: Cambridge, except that the LEM rule is called TND in Button's text.
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 TFL system .ZachTFL
:
Or, with a Fitch-style guides overlay (activated with guides="fitch"
):
Simple indent guides overlay (activated with guides="indent"
):
The TFL systems
The system .ZachTFL
allows all rules below. .ZachTFL2019
is like
.ZachTFL
except it disallows all derived rules, i.e., the only
allowed rules are R
, X
, IP
, and the I and E rules for the
connectives.
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 |
Negation-Elim | ¬E |
φ, ¬φ | ⊥ |
Explosion | X |
⊥ | ψ |
Biconditional-Elim | ↔︎E |
φ/ψ, φ ↔︎ ψ | ψ/φ |
Derived rules:
Rule | Abbreviation | Premises | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Reiteration | R |
φ | φ |
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.IP
(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.
First-order logic
There are three proof systems corresponding to the Calgary remix of forall
x. All of them allow sentence letters in first-order formulas. The
available relation symbols are the same as for TFL: 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 r, together with the
infinitely many subscripted letters c_{1}, c_{2}, … written c_1, c_2,…
. The available variables are s through z, with the
infinitely many subscripted letters x_{1}, x_{2}, … written x_1, x_2,…
.
As of the Fall 2019 edition of forall x: Calgary, the syntax for first-order formulas has arguments to predicates in parentheses and with commas (e.g., F(a, b)); prior to that edition, the convention was the same as in the original and Cambridge editions of forall x (e.g., Fab).
Connective | Keyboard |
---|---|
∀ | A , @ |
∃ | E , 3 |
= | = |
The first-order forall x: Calgary systems for FOL extend the rules of the system TFL 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) |
Equality Introduction | =I |
σ = σ | |
Equality Elimination | =E |
σ = τ, φ(σ)/φ(τ) | φ(τ)/φ(σ) |
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 ∃xφ(x) and a
subproof beginning with the assumption φ(σ) and ending with the
conclusion ψ, where σ does not appear in ψ, ∃xφ(x), or in any of
the undischarged assumptions or premises of the proof.
The original proof system for the Calgary version of forall x,
.ZachFOL
adds, in addition to the (basic and derived) rules of
.ZachTFL
, 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) |
The 2019 versions of the FOL systems use the new syntax, i.e., F(a, b) instead of Fab. The system .ZachFOL2019
allows only the basic
rules of the TFL system and the basic rules of FOL. The system
.ZachFOLPlus2019
allows the basic and derived rules of .ZachTFL
and the CQ rules listed above.
In summary:
System | TFL Rules | FOL Syntax | FOL Rules |
---|---|---|---|
.ZachTFL |
Basic + Derived | ||
.ZachFOL |
Basic + Derived | Fab | Basic + CQ |
.ZachTFL2019 |
Basic | ||
.ZachFOL2019 |
Basic | F(a,b) | Basic |
.ZachFOLPlus2019 |
Basic + Derived | F(a,b) | Basic + CQ |
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.↩︎