1

Prove that $ \vdash ((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A) \rightarrow A $

I want to make sure my answer is right as the textbook has no solutions.

I am using Equational Proof. The textbook is "Mathematical Logic" For Tourlakis.

My answer :

$$ ((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A) \rightarrow A $$ $$ \Rightarrow \ <axiom + leib; c-part:(p\rightarrow A)\rightarrow A; p \ fresh>$$ $$ ((A \lor B \equiv B)\rightarrow A)\rightarrow A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom + leib; c-part: p \rightarrow A; p\ fresh>$$ $$(A \lor B \equiv B \lor A \equiv A) \rightarrow A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom + leib: c-part : A \lor B \equiv B \lor p\ ; p\ fresh>$$ $$(A \lor B \equiv B \lor T) \rightarrow A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom + leib: c-part : A \lor p \lor T:\ p\ fresh>$$ $$(A \lor T \lor T)\rightarrow A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom + leib ; c-part: (A \lor p) \rightarrow A; p\ fresh>$$ $$(A \lor T) \rightarrow A$$ $$\Rightarrow<axiom>$$ $$A \lor T \lor A \equiv A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom + leib; c-part: p \lor T \equiv A ; p\ fresh>$$ $$A \lor T \equiv A$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom>$$ $$A \lor A \equiv T$$ $$\Rightarrow <axiom>$$ $$A \equiv T$$ $$\Rightarrow<axiom>$$ $$A$$

Axioms and theorems : enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

  • I'm really finding your post to be confusing to follow, as it now appears. – amWhy Feb 20 '14 at 18:59
  • Why is it confusing to follow? I just want to see if my answer is right or wrong. – Out Of Bounds Feb 20 '14 at 19:00
  • E.g., $\Rightarrow <axiom + leib: c-part : A \lor p \lor T:\ p\ fresh>$. It would help if you explained some terms you're using, if you'd not write $text$ but rather $\text{text}$: \text{text} or text: *text* – amWhy Feb 20 '14 at 19:05
  • @amWhy - I says that the starting point is Implication axiom [Tourlakis, page 43] : $A \rightarrow B \equiv A \lor B \equiv B$ and used Leibniz rule [Tourlakis, page 40] in order to obtain... But I'm not sure of the "procedure" : why he starts from the conclusion ? In order to prove Peirce's law, we must start from an axiom and (through application of the rules) construct a "chain of equivalences" ending with the formula to be proved... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 20 '14 at 19:15
  • That's what I gathered. Thanks @Mauro. I agree with your "puzzlement:" "why he starts from the conclusion..." – amWhy Feb 20 '14 at 19:19
  • There is a template to use to prove this, which is start with what you want to prove and end with an axiom or previously proved theorem. That's what i did. – Out Of Bounds Feb 20 '14 at 19:20
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA See my edit please. I put the axioms i used in the proof. – Out Of Bounds Feb 20 '14 at 19:22
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA Thank you. That would be good. – Out Of Bounds Feb 20 '14 at 19:24

1 Answers1

0

Prove that

$ \vdash ((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A) \rightarrow A $

in Equational Logic [all references to the textbook of George Tourlakis, Mathematical Logic (2008)].

I think that we must use 2.6.1 Metatheorem. (Deduction Theorem) :

If $\Gamma \cup \{ C \} \vdash D$, then also $\Gamma \vdash C \rightarrow D$.

This theorem allows us to "reduce the complexity" of the formula to be proved, starting from the "assumption" $C$ and deriving $D$.

In our case :

$\Gamma = \emptyset $ , $\quad C$ will be $(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A \quad $ and $\quad D$ will be $A$.

I will use the Equational Proof Layout [page 65], as done by the OP, i.e. a chain of equivalences with annotations : $A_1 \Leftrightarrow$ (annotation) ... $\Leftrightarrow$ (annotation) $A_n$

Having said that, we will start with :

$$ (A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A $$ $$ \Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib; "C-part" is} \ p \rightarrow A \ >$$

Note. We have used axiom (11) : Implication [page 43] : $A \rightarrow B \equiv A \lor B \equiv B$, and we have used Equanimity and Leibniz merged, that is the "derived rule" [see Tourlakis, page 57, 2.1.16 Theorem (Eqn + Leib Merged)] : $C[p := A], A \equiv B \vdash C[p := B]$; we will call it "Leib".

$$ (A \lor B \equiv B)\rightarrow A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib; "C-part" is} \ (A \lor B) \equiv B \equiv p \ >$$

Note. We have used as axiom : Th.2.4.11 [page 70] : $\vdash C \rightarrow A \equiv \lnot C \lor A$. $$\lnot [(A \lor B) \equiv B ]\lor A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib; "C-part" is} \ p \lor A \ >$$

Note. We have used axiom (4) : Introduction of $\lnot$ : $\lnot A \equiv A \equiv \bot$. $$((A \lor B )\equiv B) \equiv \bot) \lor A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib, with axiom (8) : Distributivity of} \lor \text{over} \equiv \ >$$ $$[(A \lor B) \equiv B] \lor A \equiv A \lor \bot$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib, where axiom is Th.2.4.10} \vdash A \lor \bot \equiv A \ >$$ $$[(A \lor B) \equiv B] \lor A \equiv A $$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Leib, with axiom (8) : Distributivity of} \lor \text{over} \equiv \ >$$ $$(A \lor B) \lor A \equiv (A \lor B) \equiv A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{by axioms (5) and (6) : Associativity and Symmetry of} \lor \ >$$ $$(A \lor A) \lor B \equiv A \lor B \equiv A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{by axiom (7) : Idempotency of} \lor \ >$$ $$A \lor B \equiv A \lor B \equiv A$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \ < \text{axiom + Equanimity, where axiom is Th.2.1.12} \vdash A \equiv A \ >$$ $$A$$

Finally having derived $A$ from the "assumption" $(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A$, i.e.

$(A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A \vdash A$

we may invoke the Deduction Theorem [2.6.1 Metatheorem] and conclude :

$\vdash ((A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow A) \rightarrow A$.

Please, check !

  • How did you use Equanimity in the last step ? I think we never used it in Equational Style Proof. – Out Of Bounds Feb 22 '14 at 18:06
  • @Tennisman - of course we use the "axiom" $A \equiv A$ in the form : $A \lor B \equiv A \lor B$. Equanimity [pag.40] allows us to "detach" (like modus ponens) $B$ form the two premises $A$ and $A \equiv B$. In our case, $A$ is $A \lor B \equiv A \lor B$ and $A \equiv B$ is $A \lor B \equiv A \lor B \equiv A$. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 22 '14 at 19:12
  • I got it thank you. I have another question. The question was prove that $ \vDash_{taut} B \equiv (p \lor \lnot q \lor r) \land (\lnot p \lor q \lor r) $. The solution for that question was a truth table for that formula and in the table the formula evaluates to false two times. So how this could be a tautology ? ( The answer says it's tautology). Actually the question ask to prove $ \vdash B \equiv (p \lor \lnot q \lor r) \land (\lnot p \lor q \lor r) $ ( he used post's theorem) – Out Of Bounds Feb 22 '14 at 19:20
  • The question says: Let B be a formula in which the variables p,q,r occur, but no others, and whose truth table has a result f only in the rows f,t,f(state for p,q,r in that order) and t,f,f. Show that B is provably equivalent to the formula $ p \lor \lnot q \lor r) \land (\lnot p \lor q \lor r) $. The question in tourlakis book in chapter 3 . Question 3.(a) – Out Of Bounds Feb 22 '14 at 20:18