Questions tagged [natural-deduction]

For questions concerning natural deduction, a formal proof system studied in proof theory. A natural deduction proof starts with a set of premises and applies introduction and elimination rules to arrive at the conclusion. This tag is not specific to any particular logic, classical or intuitionistic, propositional or allowing quantifiers.

This tag is for questions concerning natural deduction and proofs in natural deduction.

Natural deduction is a formalization in proof theory. A proof in natural deduction starts from a set of assumptions (formulae) and applies a series of introduction and elimination rules to arrive at the conclusion.

There are separate introduction rules and elimination rules for each logical connective (such as and ($\land$) or not ($\lnot$)). The introduction rules give some conditions under which we may assert the connective: for example, from $A$ and $B$ we may assert $A \land B$. The elimination rules give some conclusions we may assert from the connective: for example, from $A \land B$, we may conclude $A$. Thus in forming a proof, the introduction rules are used to introduce new logical connectives, and elimination rules are used to eliminate logical connectives.

The specific introduction and elimination rules used vary, depending on what logic (for example, classical, intuitionistic or minimal) we are working in.

929 questions
1
vote
2 answers

Natural Deduction Rules

I am familiar with the main rules of natural deduction: $∧i, ∧e1, ¬¬e, ⇒e, ⇒i, ∨i, ∨e$ (slightly). However, when presented with the following premise: $$\sim a ∧ (a ∨ b)$$ I used $∧ e$ to obtain: $$\sim a , (a ∨ b)$$ Now I am stuck on what exact…
zzxxx123
  • 113
1
vote
2 answers

How to prove P / Q or not Q without using any assumption?

How to prove ( q or not q), which is tautology when an arbitrary premise is given? (Using natural deduction) I tried to make steps that finally goes to HS but failed.
Moibois
  • 11
1
vote
1 answer

Deductive proof for the unicorn scenario

(p ⇒ q) ∧ (¬p ⇒ ¬q ∧r) (q ∨r) ⇒ s s ⇒ t Therefore, t my efforts. 1 (p ⇒ q) ∧ (¬p ⇒ ¬q ∧r premise 2 (q ∨r) ⇒ s premise 3 s ⇒ t premise 4 p assumption 5 q from 1 &…
user432124
1
vote
2 answers

How to write a natural deduction proof for these formulas?

I'm new to natural deduction and is having trouble proofing these formulas, any help or hint is appreciated. $$ \neg \exists p(x)\rightarrow \forall x \neg p(x)\\ \exists x \neg p(x) \rightarrow \neg \forall xp(x) $$
1
vote
2 answers

Natural Deduction Problem: Predicate Logic with Identity in a Gentzen-style system

I'm looking for a solution to this problem: $$\left\{\forall x (Qx \leftrightarrow (\exists y (Rxy \wedge \neg x = y))),\quad \forall x Qx,\quad \exists x \exists y \forall z (z = x \vee z = y)\right\} \models \forall x \forall y (Rxy…
1
vote
2 answers

Why are there infinitely many proofs for any tautology in Natural Deduction?

I've recently come across the claim that there are infinitely many derivations in Natural Deduction for any given tautology. Intuitively, this seems odd, because there is, say, a perfectly straightforward way of proving 'P or not-P' (assume P, use…
1
vote
2 answers

(s → p) ∨ (t → q) entails (s → q) ∨ (t → p) natural deduction

Hey guys I am stuck on this proof $(s \rightarrow p) \lor (t \rightarrow q)$ entails $(s \rightarrow q) \lor (t \rightarrow p)$ using natural deduction to prove it. I used the or elimination in order to split up the two brackets, but I can't get any…
1
vote
1 answer

When is a subproof provable in natural deduction

For a natural deduction proof of $\Gamma_1 \vdash B_1$, I want to know whether a subproof $\Gamma_2 \vdash B_2$ in the proof is provable without uisng natural deduction (this subproof could be anywhere in the proof). My feeling is that ($\Gamma_2…
mmgro27
  • 201
0
votes
2 answers

Prove that $¬(A → B) ⊢ ¬(¬A ∨ B)$ in natural deduction

I just can’t seem to find a way to prove $¬(A → B) ⊢ ¬(¬A ∨ B)$ Any help would be appreciated! I am using a reductio strategy. I have made the following assumptions: $ \text{1.} ¬A ∨ B$ $ \text{2.} ¬A$ $ \text{3.} A$ $ \text{4.} ¬B$ But I just can’t…
0
votes
0 answers

what does it mean to say natural deduction is paradoxical?

In the very beginning of Chapter 2 Natural Deduction, page 8, in Jean-Yves Girard's book Proofs and Types (translated by Paul Taylor and Yves Lafont, published in 1989), the author writes: Natural deduction is a slightly paradoxical system: it is…
matianfu
  • 109
0
votes
1 answer

Natural deduction proof of ¬p ∨ q ⊢ ¬(¬p → q)

I am working through some natural deduction proofs and found this question: ¬p ∨ q ⊢ ¬(¬p → q) I can quite easily get to ¬¬(p → q) using the ¬¬i rule, so I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if the question perhaps contains a typo. Any ideas?
0
votes
2 answers

Natural deduction - help solving

I have this issue in natural deduction: B -> (A & ~A) ├ ~B I am having a really hard time understanding the rules in natural deduction - but this is what I got so far - can someone help me to the end? B / premis (A&~A) /premis B-> ^ /1, 2 ^E B…
user903429
0
votes
1 answer

natrual deduction is this model wrong answer?

This model entails premise but not the conclusion But in my opinion if we use the b also in conclusion we have a proof that this premise entails conclusion or?
test
  • 1
0
votes
1 answer

Proof 3 sequents with natural deduction

I have to proof 3 sequents and allowed are the basic rules like elimination, implication, pbc and so on. I am kinda struggling with the solutions but maybe you can give me some hints. :) 1) -p -> p |- p 1.| -p -> p (premise) 2.|| -p …
canon
  • 31
0
votes
2 answers

Proving that ∀xG(x,a)⊢∃xG(a,x)

Can I prove ∀xG(x,a)⊢∃xG(a,x) this way: ∀xG(x,a) premise G(a,a) ∀xe ∃xG(a,x) ∃xi