1

Vilnis Detlovs. Memorial Page (in Latvian)

Introduction to Mathematical Logic

Hyper-textbook for students by Vilnis Detlovs, Dr. math., and Karlis Podnieks, Dr. Math. niversity o! Latvia
This work is licensed under a "reative "ommons License and is copyrighted 2000-2012 by us, Vilnis etlo!s and "arlis #odnieks$ %ections 1, 2, & of this book represent an extended translation of the corresponding chapters of the book' V.Detlovs, #lements o! Mathematical Logic, (iga, )ni!ersity of *at!ia, 1+,-, 2.2 pp$ / in *at!ian0$ 1ith kind per2ission of r$ etlo!s$ In $re$aration 3 fore!er /howe!er, since 2000, used successfully in a real logic course for co2puter science students0$ This hyper-textbook contains links to' 1ikipedia, the free encyclopedia4 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e of the )ni!ersity of %t 6ndrews4 5ath1orld of 1olfra2 (esearch$

Table of Contents
(eferences$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$& 1$ 7ntroduction$ 1hat 7s *ogic, (eally8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1$1$ Total 9or2ali:ation is #ossible;$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. 1$2$ #redicate *anguages$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$10 1$&$ 6xio2s of *ogic' 5ini2al %yste2, <onstructi!e %yste2 and <lassical %yste2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2, 1$-$ The 9la!or of #ro!ing irectly$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&= 1$.$ eduction Theore2s$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-0 2$ #ropositional *ogic$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.0 2$1$ #ro!ing 9or2ulas <ontaining 72plication only$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.0 2$2$ #ro!ing 9or2ulas <ontaining <on>unction$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.1 2$&$ #ro!ing 9or2ulas <ontaining is>unction$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.2$-$ 9or2ulas <ontaining ?egation 3 5ini2al *ogic$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.= 2$.$ 9or2ulas <ontaining ?egation 3 <onstructi!e *ogic$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,2$,$ 9or2ulas <ontaining ?egation 3 <lassical *ogic$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,. 2$=$ <onstructi!e @2bedding$ Ali!enkoBs Theore2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,+ 2$C$ 6xio2 7ndependence$ )sing <o2puters in 5athe2atical #roofs$$$$$$$$=1 &$ #redicate *ogic$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$C, &$1$ #ro!ing 9or2ulas <ontaining Duantifiers and 72plication only$$$$$$$$$$C, &$2$ 9or2ulas <ontaining ?egations and a %ingle Duantifier$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$CC &$&$ #ro!ing 9or2ulas <ontaining <on>unction and is>unction$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+C &$-$ (eplace2ent Theore2s$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$100 &$.$ <onstructi!e @2bedding$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$10C -$ <o2pleteness Theore2s /5odel Theory0$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$11C -$1$ 7nterpretations and 5odels$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$11C -$2$ <lassical #ropositional *ogic E Truth Tables$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1&0 -$&$ <lassical #redicate *ogic E AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2$$$$$$$$$$$$$1&+ -$-$ <onstructi!e #ropositional *ogic 3 "ripke %e2antics$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1.C .$ ?or2al 9or2s$ (esolution 5ethod$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1=C .$1$ #renex ?or2al 9or2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1C0 .$2$ %kole2 ?or2al 9or2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1C+ .$&$ <on>uncti!e and is>uncti!e ?or2al 9or2s$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1+. .$-$ <lause 9or2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1++ .$.$ (esolution 5ethod for #ropositional 9or2ulas$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$20. .$,$ HerbrandBs Theore2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$21.$=$ (esolution 5ethod for #redicate 9or2ulas$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$220 ,$ 5iscellaneous$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2&& ,$1$ ?egation as <ontradiction or 6bsurdity$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2&&

&

%e!erences
&ilbert D., 'ernays P. ()*+,- Arundlagen der 5athe2atik$ Vol$ 7, Gerlin, 1+&-, -=1 pp$ /(ussian translation a!ailable0 Kleene ..". ()*/0- 7ntroduction to 5eta2athe2atics$ Van ?ostrand, 1+.2 /(ussian translation a!ailable0 Kleene ..". ()*12- 5athe2atical *ogic$ Hohn 1iley I %ons, 1+,= /(ussian translation a!ailable0 Mendelson #. ()**2- 7ntroduction to 5athe2atical *ogic$ 9ourth @dition$ 7nternational Tho2son #ublishing, 1++=, --0 pp$ /(ussian translation a!ailable0 Podnieks K. ()**2- 1hat is 5athe2atics' AFdelBs Theore2 and 6round$ 1++=-2012 /a!ailable online, (ussian !ersion a!ailable0$

). Introduction. 3hat Is Logic, %eally4

35%6I678 7n this book, $redicate language is used as a synony2 of !irst order language, !ormal theory is used as a synony2 of !ormal system, deductive system, constructive logic is used as a synony2 of intuitionistic logic8 1hat is logic8
%ee also 9actasia *ogic by (oger Gishop Hones$

7n a sense, logic represents the 2ost general means o! reasoning used by people and co2puters$ 1hy are 2eans of reasoning i2portant8 Gecause any body of data 2ay contain not only facts !isible directly$ 9or exa2ple, assu2e the following data' the date of birth of so2e person J is Hanuary 1, 2000, and yesterday, %epte2ber 1-, 2010 so2e person K killed so2e person L$ Then, 2ost likely, J did not kill L$ This conclusion is not represented in our data directly, but can be deri!ed fro2 it by using so2e 2eans of reasoning 3 a9ioms /Mbackground knowledgeN0 and rules o! in!erence$ 9or exa2ple, one 2ay use the following state2ent as an axio2' M5ost likely, a person of age 10 canOt kill anybodyN$ There 2ay be 2eans of reasoning of different le!els of generality, and of different ranges of applicability$ The abo!e Mkiller axio2N represents the lowest le!el 3 it is a !ery specific state2ent$ Gut one can use laws of physics to deri!e conclusions fro2 hisPher data$ Theories of physics, che2istry, biology etc$ represent a 2ore general le!el of 2eans of reasoning$ Gut can there be 2eans of reasoning applicable in al2ost e!ery situation8 This 3 the 2ost general 3 le!el of 2eans of reasoning is usually regarded as logic$ Gut is logic absolute /i$e$ uniQue, predestined0 or relati!e /i$e$ there is 2ore than one kind of logic08 7n 2odern ti2es, an absolutist position is so2ewhat incon!enient 3 you 2ust defend your MabsoluteN concept of logic against heretics and dissidents, but !ery little can be done to exter2inate these people$ They 2ay freely publish their concepts on the 7nternet$ %o let us better adopt the relati!ist position, and define logic/s0 as any common !rame:ork !or building theories$ 9or exa2ple, the so-called absolute geo2etry can be !iewed as a co22on logic for both the @uclidean and non-@uclidean geo2etry$ Aroup axio2s ser!es as a co22on logic for

. theories in!estigating 2athe2atical structures that are subtypes of groups$ 6nd, if you decide to rebuild all 2athe2atical theories on your fa!orite set theory, then you can !iew set theory as your logic$
<an there be a co22on logic for the entire 2athe2atics8 To a!oid the absolutist approach let us appreciate all the existing concepts of 2athe2atics 3 classical /traditional0, constructi!ist /intuitionist0, ?ew 9oundations etc$ Rf course, enthusiasts of each of these concepts 2ust propose so2e specific co22on fra2ework for building 2athe2atical theories, i$e$ so2e specific kind of logic$ 6nd they do$ <an set theory /for exa2ple, currently, the 2ost popular !ersion of it 3 Ler2elo-9raenkelBs set theory0 be !iewed as a co22on logic for the classical /traditional0 2athe2atics8 Kou 2ay think so, if you do not wish to distinguish between the first order notion of natural nu2bers /i$e$ discrete 2athe2atics0 and the second order notion /i$e$ ScontinuousS 2athe2atics based on set theory or a subset of it0$ Rr, if you do not wish to in!estigate in parallel the classical and the constructi!ist /intuitionist0 !ersions of so2e theories$

).). ;otal <ormali=ation is Possible8

Aottlob 9rege /1C-C-1+2.0 <harles %$ #eirce /1C&+-1+1-0 Gertrand (ussell /1C=2-1+=00 a!id Hilbert /1C,2-1+-&0

How far can we proceed with the 2athe2atical rigor 3 with the axio2ati:ation of so2e theory8 <o2plete eli2ination of intuition, i$e$ full reduction of all proofs to a list of axio2s and rules of inference, is this really possible8 The work by Aottlob 9rege, <harles %$ #eirce, Gertrand (ussell, a!id Hilbert and their colleagues showed how this can be achie!ed e!en with the 2ost co2plicated 2athe2atical theories$ 6ll 2athe2atical theories were indeed reduced to syste2s of axio2s and rules of inference without any ad2ixture of sophisticated hu2an skills, intuitions etc$ Today, the logical techniQues de!eloped by these brilliant people allow ulti2ate axio2ati:ation of any theory that is based on a stable, self-consistent syste2 of principles /i$e$ of any 2athe2atical theory0$ 1hat do they look like 3 such S100T rigorousS theories8 They are called !ormal theories /the ter2s Mfor2al syste2sN and Mdeducti!e syste2sN also are used0 e2phasi:ing that no step of reasoning can be done without a reference to an exactly for2ulated list of axio2s and rules of inference$ @!en the 2ost Sself-e!identS logical principles /like, Sif A i2plies B, and B i2plies C, then A i2plies CS0 2ust be either for2ulated in the list of axio2s and rules explicitly, or deri!ed fro2 it$ 1hat is, in fact, a 2athe2atical theory8 7t is an >engine> generating

, theorems$ Then, a for2al theory 2ust be an SengineS generating theore2s without in!ol!ing of hu2an skills, intuitions etc$, i$e$ by 2eans of a co2puter progra2$ The first distincti!e feature of a for2al theory is a $recisely de!ined /Sfor2alS0 language used to express its $ro$ositions$ S#recisely definedS 2eans here that there is an algorith2 allowing to deter2ine, is a gi!en character string a correct proposition, or not$ The second distincti!e feature of a for2al theory is a precisely defined /Sfor2alS0 notion of $roo!$ @ach proof pro!es so2e proposition, that is called /after being pro!ed0 a theorem$ Thus, theore2s are a subset of propositions$ 7t 2ay see2 surprising to a 2athe2atician, but the 2ost general exact definition of the Sfor2al proofS in!ol!es neither axio2s, nor inference rules$ ?either Sself-e!identS axio2s, nor SplausibleS rules of inference are distincti!e features of the Sfor2alityS$ %peaking strictly, Sself-e!identS is synony2ous to Saccepted without argu2entationS$ Hence, axio2s andPor rules of inference 2ay be Sgood, or badS, Strue, or falseS, and so 2ay be the theore2s obtained by 2eans of the2$ The only definitely !erifiable thing is here the fact that so2e theore2 has been, indeed, $roved fro2 by using so2e set of axio2s, and by 2eans of so2e set of inference rules$ Thus, the second distincti!e feature of Sfor2alityS is the possibility to veri!y the correctness o! $roo!s 2echanically, i$e$ without in!ol!ing of hu2an skills, intuitions etc$ This can be best for2ulated by using the /since 1+&, 3 precisely defined0 notion of algorith2 /a S2echanically applicable co2putation procedureS, a co2puter progra20' 5 theory T is called a !ormal theory, i! and only i! there is an algorithm allo:ing to veri!y, is a given te9t a correct $roo! via $rinci$les o! T, or not. 7f so2ebody is going to publish a S2athe2atical textS calling it S proof of a theorem in theory TS, then we 2ust be able to !erify it 2echanically whether the text in Question is really a correct proof according to the standards of pro!ing accepted in theory T$ Thus, in a for2al theory, the standards of reasoning should be defined precisely enough to enable !erification of proofs by 2eans of a co2puter progra2$ /?ote that we are discussing here veri!ication o! ready $roo!s, and not the 2uch 2ore difficult proble2 3 is so2e proposition pro!able in T or not, see @xercise 1$1$. below and the text after it0$ 6xio2s and rules of inference represent only one /but the 2ost popular;0 of the possible techniQues of for2ali:ation$ 6s an unpractical exa2ple of a for2al theory let us consider the game of chess, let us call this StheoryS CHESS$ *et Bs define as $ro$ositions of CHESS all the possible positions 3 i$e$ allocations of so2e of the pieces /kings

= included0 on a chessboard 3 plus the flag' Swhite to 2o!eS or Sblack to 2o!eS$ Thus, the set of all possible positions is the language of CHESS$ The only a9iom of CHESS is the initial position, and the rules o! in!erence 3 the rules of the ga2e$ The rules allow passing fro2 so2e propositions of CHESS to so2e other ones$ %tarting with the axio2 and iterating 2o!es allowed by the rules we obtain theorems of CHESS$ Thus, theore2s of CHESS are defined as all the possible positions /i$e$ propositions of CHESS0 that can be obtained fro2 the initial position /the axio2 of CHESS0 by 2o!ing pieces according to the rules of the ga2e /i$e$ by Spro!ingS !ia the inference rules of CHESS0$ #9ercise ).).). <ould you pro!ide an unpro!able proposition of CHESS8 1hy is CHESS called a for2al theory8 1hen so2ebody offers a S2athe2atical textS P as a proof of a theore2 A in CHESS, this 2eans that P is a record of so2e chess-ga2e stopped in the position A$ <hecking the correctness of such SproofsS is a boring, but an easy task$ The rules of the ga2e are for2ulated precisely enough 3 we could write a co2puter progra2 that will execute this task$ #9ercise ).).0. Try esti2ating the si:e of this progra2 in so2e progra22ing language$ Rur second exa2ple of a for2al theory is only a bit 2ore serious$ 7t was proposed by #aul *oren:en, so let us call this theory L$ Pro$ositions of L are all the possible SwordsS 2ade of letters a, b, for exa2ple' a, b, aa, aba, baab$ Thus, the set of all these SwordsS is the language of L$ The only a9iom of L is the word a, and L has two rules o! in!erence' X U- Xb, and X U- aXa$ This 2eans that /in L0 fro2 a proposition X we can infer i22ediately the propositions Xb and aXa$ 9or exa2ple, the proposition aababb is a theorem of L' a U- ab U- aaba U- aabab U- aababb rule1 rule2 rule1 rule1 This fact is expressed usually as L U- aababb / S* pro!es aababbS, U- being a Sfallen TS0$ #9ercise ).).+. a0 Verify that L is a for2al theory$ /Hint' describe an algorith2 allowing to deter2ine, is a seQuence of propositions of L a correct proof, or not$0 b0 /#$ *oren:en0 Verify the following property of theore2s of *' for any X, if L U- X, then L U- aaX$ Rne of the 2ost i2portant properties of for2al theories is gi!en in the following #9ercise ).).,. %how that the set o! all theorems o! a !ormal theory is e!!ectively enumerable, i$e$ show that, for any for2al theory T, a co2puter

C progra2 PT can be written that prints out on an /endless0 paper tape all theore2s of this theory /and nothing else0$ /Hint' we will call T a for2al theory, if and only if we can present an algorith2 for checking texts as correct proofs !ia principles of reasoning of T$ Thus, assu2e, you ha!e - functions' GenerateFirstText ! 3 returns Text, Generate"extText ! 3 returns Text, #sCorrectProof Text! 3 returns tr$e or fa%se, ExtractTheorem Text! 3 returns Text, you 2ust i2ple2ent the functions GenerateFirstTheorem ! 3 returns Text, Generate"extTheorem ! 3 returns Text0$ )nfortunately, such $rograms cannot solve the $roblem that the mathematicians are mainly interested in? is a given $ro$osition A $rovable in T or not4 1hen, running the progra2 PT on a co2puter, we see our proposition A printed out, this 2eans that A is pro!able in T$ %till, in general, until that 2o2ent we cannot know in ad!ance whether A will be printed out so2e ti2e later or it will not be printed at all$ 6ote. 6ccording to the official ter2inology, effecti!ely enu2erable sets are called Srecursi!ely enu2erable setsS, in so2e texts 3 also Slistable setsS$ #9ercise ).)./. a0 escribe an algorith2 deter2ining whether a proposition of L is a theore2 or not$ b0 <ould you i2agine such an algorith2 for CHESS8 Rf course, you can, yet$$$ Thus you see that e!en, ha!ing a relati!ely si2ple algorith2 for chec&ing the correctness of proofs, the proble2 of pro'abi%ity can be a !ery co2plicated one$ T is called a solvable theory /2ore precisely 3 e!!ectively solvable theory0, if and only if there is an algorith2 allowing to check whether so2e proposition is pro'ab%e by using the principles of T or not$ 7n the @xercise 1$1$.a you pro!ed that L is a sol!able theory$ %till, in the @xercise 1$1$.b you established that it is hard to state whether CHESS is a Sfeasibly sol!ableS theory or not$ Determining the $rovability o! $ro$ositions is a much more com$licated task than checking the correctness o! ready $roo!s. 7t can be pro!ed that most mathematical theories are unsolvable , the ele2entary /first order0 arith2etic of natural nu2bers and set theory included /see, for exa2ple, 5endelson V1++=W, or #odnieks V1++=W, %ection ,$&0$ 7$e$ there is no algorith2 allowing to deter2ine, is so2e arith2etical proposition pro!able fro2 the axio2s of arith2etic, or not$ 6ote. 6ccording to the official ter2inology, effecti!ely sol!able sets are called Srecursi!e setsS$ ?or2ally, 2athe2atical theories contain the negation sy2bol not$ 7n such theories sol!ing the proble2 stated in a proposition A 2eans pro!ing either A, or pro!ing notA /Sdispro!ing AS, Srefuting AS0$ 1e can try to sol!e the

+ proble2 by using the enu2eration progra2 of the @xercise 1$1$-' let us wait sitting near the co2puter until A or notA is printed$ 7f A and notA will be printed both, this will 2ean that T is an inconsistent theory /i$e$ using principles of T one can pro!e so2e proposition and its negation0$ 7n general, we ha!e here - possibilities' a0 A will be printed, but notA will not /then the proble2 A has a positi!e solution0, b0 notA will be printed, but A will not /then the proble2 A has a negati!e solution0, c0 A and notA will be printed both /then T is an inconsistent theory0, d0 neither A, nor notA will be printed$ 7n the case d0 we 2ay sit fore!er by our co2puter, yet nothing interesting will happen' using the principles of T one can neither pro!e nor dispro!e the proposition A, and for this reason such a theory is called an incom$lete theory( The fa2ous inco2pleteness theore2 pro!ed by "urt AFdel in 1+&0 says that most mathematical theories are either inconsistent or incom$lete /see 5endelson V1++=W or #odnieks V1++=W, %ection ,$10$ #9ercise ).).1. %how that any /si2ultaneously0 consistent and co2plete for2al theory is sol!able$ /Hint' use the progra2 of the @xercise 1$1$-, i$e$ assu2e that you ha!e the functions GenerateFirstTheorem ! E returns Text, Generate"extTheorem ! E returns Text, and i2ple2ent the function #sPro'ab%e Text! 3 returns tr$e or fa%se0$ 1here the consistency and co2pleteness co2e in8 #9ercise ).).2. a0 Verify that Sfully axio2atic theoriesS are for2al theories in the sense of the abo!e general definition$ /Hint' assu2e, that you ha!e the following functions' GenerateFirstText ! E returns Text, Generate"extText ! E returns Text, #sPropositon Text! E returns tr$e or fa%se, #sAxiom Proposition! E returns tr$e or fa%se, there is a finite list of inference rule na2es' X( 1, $$$, (nY, function App%y )$%e"ame, List*fPropositions! E returns Proposition or fa%se, and you 2ust i2ple2ent the functions #sCorrectProof List*fPropositions! E returns tr$e or fa%se, ExtractTheorem Proof! E returns Proposition0$ b0 /for s2art students0 1hat, if, instead of X( 1, $$$, (nY, we would ha!e an infinite list of inference rules, i$e$ functions Aenerate9irst(ule/0, Aenerate?ext(ule/0 returning (ule?a2e8

10

).0. Predicate Languages

&istory
9or a short o!er!iew of the history, see Duantification$ %ee also' 6ristotle /&C--&22 G<0 3 in a sense, the Sfirst logicianS, S$$$ was not pri2arily a 2athe2atician but 2ade i2portant contributions by syste2ati:ing deducti!e logic$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ Aottlob 9rege /1C-C-1+2.0 3 S7n 1C=+ 9rege published his first 2a>or work Begriffsschrift, eine +er arithmetischen nachgebi%+ete Forme%sprache +es reinen ,en&ens /<onceptual notation, a for2al language 2odelled on that of arith2etic, for pure thought0$ 6$Aeorge and ( Heck write' ((( #n effect, it constit$tes perhaps the greatest sing%e contrib$tion to %ogic e'er ma+e an+ it -as, in any e'ent, the most important a+'ance since 6ristotle( ((( 7n this work 9rege presented for the first ti2e what we would recognise today as a logical syste2 with negation, i2plication, uni!ersal Quantification, essentially the idea of truth tables etc$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ <harles %anders #eirce /1C&+-1+1-0' S$$$ He was also interested in the 9our <olour #roble2 and proble2s of knots and linkages$$$ He then extended his fatherBs work on associati!e algebras and worked on 2athe2atical logic and set theory$ @xcept for courses on logic he ga!e at Hohns Hopkins )ni!ersity, between 1C=+ and 1CC-, he ne!er held an acade2ic post$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ Hilary #utna2$ #eirce the *ogician$ Historia .athematica, Vol$ +, 1+C2, pp$ 2+0-&01 /an online excerpt a!ailable, published by Hohn 9$ %owa0$ %ichard 'eatty. #eirceBs de!elop2ent of Quantifiers and of predicate logic$ "otre ,ame /( Forma% Logic, Vol$ 10, ? 1 /1+,+0, pp$ ,--=,$ Aeraldine Grady$ 9ro2 #eirce to %kole2$ 6 ?eglected <hapter in the History of *ogic$ @lse!ier %cience' ?orth-Holland, 2000, 2000, ,2. pp$ /online o!er!iew at http'PPwww$else!ier$co2PwpsPfindPbookdescription$cwsZho2eP,21.&.Pdescription[description 0$

1hen trying to for2ali:e so2e piece of our /until now 3 infor2al0 knowledge, how should we proceed8 1e ha!e an infor2al !ision of so2e do2ain consisting of Mob>ectsN$ 1hen speaking about it, we are uttering !arious propositions, and so2e of these propositions are regarded as MtrueN state2ents about the do2ain$ Thus, our first for2ali:ation task should be defining of so2e forma% %ang$age, allowing to put all our propositions about the do2ain in a unifor2 and precise way$ 6fter this, we can start considering propositions that we are regarding as MtrueN state2ents about the do2ain$ There 2ay be an infinity of such state2ents, hence, we canBt put down all of the2, so we 2ust organi:e the2

11 so2ehow$ %o2e 2ini2u2 of the state2ents we could si2ply declare as axioms, the other ones we could try to deri!e fro2 the axio2s by using so2e r$%es of inference$ 6s the result, we could obtain a forma% theory /in the sense of the pre!ious %ection0$ 7n 2athe2atics and co2puter science, the 2ost co22on approach to for2ali:ation is by using of the so-called $redicate languages, first introduced by A$ 9rege and <$ %$ #eirce$
/7n 2any textbooks, they are called !irst order languages, see below the warning about second order languages$0

)sually, linguists analy:e the sentence SHohn lo!es GritneyS as follows' /ohn 3 sub>ect, %o'es 3 predicate, Britney 3 ob>ect$ The 2ain idea of predicate languages is as follows' instead, let us write %o'es /ohn, Britney!, where %o'es x, y! is a two-argu2ent predicate, and /ohn, and Britney both are ob>ects$ 9ollowing this way, we could write 0 x, y! instead of x0y$ This approach 3 reducing of the hu2an language sentences to !ariables, constants, functions, predicates and @uanti!iers /see below0, appears to be flexible enough, and it is 2uch 2ore unifor2 when co2pared to the !ariety of constructs used in the natural hu2an languages$ 6 unified approach is 2uch easier to use for co22unication with co2puters$
6nother exa2ple' SGritney works for G57 as a progra22erS$ 7n a predicate language, we 2ust introduce a &-argu2ent predicate Sx works for y as :S, or works/x, y, :0$ Then, we 2ay put the abo!e fact as' works/Gritney, G57, #rogra22er0$

Language Primitives Thus, the infor2al !ision behind the notion of predicate languages is centered on the so-called Sdo2ainS 3 a /non-e2pty80 collection of Sob>ectsS, their SpropertiesS and the SrelationsS between the2, that we wish to SdescribeS /or SdefineS80 by using the language$ This !ision ser!es as a guide in defining the language precisely, and further 3 when selecting axio2s and rules of inference$ AbBect Variables Thus, the first kind of language ele2ents we will need are obBect variables /so2eti2es called also indi!idual !ariables, or si2ply, !ariables0$ 1e need an unli2ited nu2ber of the20' x, y, :, x1, y1, :1, $$$ The abo!e-2entioned Sdo2ainS is the intended SrangeS of all these !ariables$
#9am$les. 10 Guilding a language that should describe the Sdo2ain of peopleS, we 2ust start by introducing S!ariables for peopleS' x denotes an arbitrary person$

12
20 Guilding the language of the so-called !irst order arithmetic, we are thinking about Sall natural nu2bersS as the range of !ariables' 0, 1, 2, &, -, $$$ /x denotes an arbitrary natural nu2ber0$ &0 Guilding the language of set theory, we think about Sall setsS as the range of !ariables' x denotes an arbitrary set$

M,omain of peop%e1 represente+ as a 2.L c%ass +iagram 6ote. %ince our screens and printers allow only a li2ited nu2ber of pixels per inch, in principle, we should generate !ariable na2es by using a finite set of characters, for exa2ple, by using a single letter x' x, xx, xxx, xxxx, xxxxx, $$$ AbBect "onstants The next possibility we 2ay wish to ha!e in our language are the so-called obBect constants /so2eti2es called indi!idual constants, constant letters, or si2ply, constants0 3 na2es or sy2bols denoting so2e specific Sob>ectsS of our Sdo2ainS$
#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS we 2ay introduce constants denoting particular people' Hohn, Gritney etc$ 20 7n the language of first order arith2etic, we 2ay wish to introduce two constants 3 0 and 1 to denote S:eroS and SoneS 3 two natural nu2bers ha!ing specific properties$ &0 7n the language of set theory, we could introduce a constant denoting the e2pty set, but there is a way to do without it as well /for details, #odnieks V1++=W, %ection 2$&0$

<unction "onstants 7n so2e languages we 2ay need also the so-called !unction constants /so2eti2es called function letters0 3 na2es or sy2bols denoting specific

1& functions, i$e$ 2appings between Sob>ectsS of our Sdo2ainS, or operations on these ob>ects$
#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS we will not use function constants$ 20 7n the language of first order arith2etic, we will introduce only two function constants S\S and S]S denoting the usual addition and 2ultiplication of natural nu2bers, i$e$ the twoargu2ent functions x\y and x]y$ &0 7n the language of set theory, we could introduce function constants denoting set intersections x y , unions x y , set differences x3y, power sets #/x0 etc$, but there is a way to do without these sy2bols as well /for details, #odnieks V1++=W, %ection 2$&0$

7n 2athe2atics, nor2ally, we are writing f x, y! to denote the !alue of the function f for the argu2ent !alues x, y$ This /the so-called SprefixS notation0 is a unifor2 way suitable for functions ha!ing any nu2ber of argu2ents' f x!, g x, y!, h x, y, 3! etc$ 7n our e!eryday 2athe2atical practice so2e of the twoargu2ent functions /in fact, operations0 are represented by using the 2ore con!enient SinfixS notation /x\y, x]y instead of the unifor2 \/x, y0, ]/x, y0, etc$0$ 6ote$ 7n a sense, ob>ect constants can be !iewed as a special case of function constants 3 an ob>ect constant is a M:ero-argu2ent functionN$ Predicate "onstants The last /but the 2ost i2portant;0 kind of pri2iti!es we need in our language are the so-called $redicate constants /so2eti2es called predicate letters0 3 na2es or sy2bols denoting specific $ro$erties /of0 or relations between Sob>ectsS of our Sdo2ainS$ 6ote$ )sing SpredicateS as the unifying ter2 for SpropertyS and SrelationS 2ay see2 so2ewhat unusual$ Gut so2e kind of such unifying ter2 is necessary$ #roperties are, in fact, unary /i$e$ one-argu2ent0 SpredicatesS, for exa2ple, Sx is redS$ (elations are, two- or 2ore-argu2ent SpredicatesS, for exa2ple, Sx is better than yS, or Sx sends y to :S$
#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS we will use the following predicate constants /see the class diagra2 abo!e0' .a%e x! E 2eans Sx is a 2aleS4 Fema%e x!

E 2eans Sx is a fe2aleS4 E 2eans Sx is 2other of yS4 E 2eans Sx is father of yS4 E 2eans Sx and y are 2arried, y being wifeS4

.other x, y! Father x, y!

.arrie+ x, y!

x^y E 2eans Sx an y are the sa2e personS$ The first two constants represent, in fact, SpropertiesS /or, SclassesS0 of our ob>ects$ The other - constans represents SrelationsS between our ob>ects$ The ter2 SpredicateS is used to include

1both !ersions$ 1e do not introduce Person x! as a predicate because our do2ains consists of persons only$ 20 7t 2ay see2 strange to non-2athe2aticians, yet the 2ost popular relation of ob>ects used in 2ost 2athe2atical theories, is e@uality /or identity0$ %till, this is not strange for 2athe2aticians$ 1e can select an ob>ect x in our Sdo2ainS by using a !ery specific co2bination of properties and relations of it, and then 3 select another ob>ect y 3 by using a different co2bination$ 6nd after this /so2eti2es it 2ay take 2any years to do0 we pro!e that x^y, i$e$ that these two different co2binations of properties and relations are possessed by a single ob>ect$ 5any of disco!eries in 2athe2atics could be reduced to this for2$ 7n the language of first order arith2etic, eQuality S^S is the only necessary predicate constant$ RtherSbasicS relations 2ust be reduced to eQuality$ 9or exa2ple, the relation x_y for natural nu2bers x, y can be reduced to eQuality by using the addition function and the for2ula :/x\:\1^y0$ &0 7n the language of set theory a specific predicate constant SinS denotes the set 2e2bership relation' Sx in yS 2eans Sx is a 2e2ber of yS$ The eQuality predicate x^y also will be used 3 it 2eans Sthe sets x an y possess the sa2e 2e2bersS$

The unifor2 way of representation suitable for predicates ha!ing any nu2ber of argu2ents is again the SprefixS notation' p x!, 4 x, y!, r x, y, 3! etc$ 7n the real 2athe2atical practice, so2e of the two-argu2ent predicates are represented by using the SinfixS notation /for exa2ple, x^y instead of the unifor2 ^/x, y0, etc$0$
CeroDargument $redicate constants4 7n an interpretation, each such predicate 2ust beco2e either StrueS, or SfalseS$ Hence, paradoxically, :ero-argu2ent predicate constants beha!e like Spropositional !ariablesS 3 they represent assertions that do not possess a 2eaning, but possess a Struth !alueS$

.ummary o! Language Primitives Thus, the specification of a predicate language includes the following $rimitives' 10 6 countable set of ob>ect !ariable na2es /you 2ay generate these na2es, for exa2ple, by using a single letter SxS' x, xx, xxx, xxxx, $$$0$ 20 6n e2pty, finite, or countable set of ob>ect constants$ &0 6n e2pty, finite, or countable set of function constants$ To each function constant a fixed argu2ent nu2ber 2ust be assigned$ -0 6 finite, or countable set of predicate constants$ To each predicate constant a fixed argu2ent nu2ber 2ust be assigned$ ifferent sets of pri2iti!es yield different predicate languages$
#9am$les$ 10 Rur Slanguage for peopleS is based on' a0 ob>ect !ariables x, y, :, $$$4 b0 ob>ect constants' Hohn, Gritney, $$$4 c0 function constants' none4 d0 predicate constants' .a%e x!, Fema%e x!, .other x, y!, Father x, y!, .arrie+ x, y!, x0y$ 20 The language of first order arith2etic is based on' a0 ob>ect !ariables x, y, :, $$$4 b0 ob>ect constants' 0, 14 c0 function constants' x\y, x]y4 d0 predicate constant' x^y$

1.
&0 The language of set theory is based on' a0 ob>ect !ariables x, y, :, $$$4 b0 ob>ect constants' none4 c0 function constants' none4 d0 predicate constants' x in y, x^y$

The re2aining part of the language definition is co22on for all predicate languages$ ;erms and !ormulas Gy using the language pri2iti!es, we can build ter2s, ato2ic for2ulas and /co2pound0 for2ulas$ ;erms are expressions used to denote ob>ects and functions' a0 Rb>ect !ariables and ob>ect constants /if any0, are ter2s$ b0 7f f is a k-argu2ent function constant, and t 1, $$$, tk are ter2s, then the string f/t1, $$$, tk0 is a ter2$ c0 There are no other ter2s$
#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS only !ariables x, y, :, $$$, and ob>ect constants /ohn, Britney, $$$ are ter2s$ 20 7n the language of first order arith2etic, for addition and 2ultiplication the SinfixS notation is used' if t1, t2 are ter2s, then /t1\t20 and /t1]t20 are ter2s$ Rf course, the ob>ect constants 0, 1 and !ariables x, y, :, $$$ are ter2s$ @xa2ples of 2ore co2plicated ter2s' /x\y0, //1\10]/1\100, ///1\10]x0\10$ &0 7n the language of set theory, !ariables x, y, :, $$$ are the only kind of ter2s$

7f a ter2 does not contain !ariable na2es, then it denotes an Sob>ectS of our Sdo2ainS /for exa2ple, //1\10\10 denotes a specific natural nu2ber 3 the nu2ber &0$ 7f a ter2 contains !ariables, then it denotes a function$ 9or exa2ple, ///x]x0\/y]y00\10 denotes the function x 2\y2\1$ /3arning8 ?ote that the language of first order arith2etic does not contain a function constant denoting the e9$onentiation xy, thus, for exa2ple, we 2ust write x]x instead of x2$0 Rf course, the key ele2ent of our efforts in describing Sob>ectsS, their properties and relations, will be assertions, for exa2ple, the co22utati!e law in arith2etic' //x\y0^/y\x00$ 7n predicate languages, assertions are called !ormulas /or, so2eti2es, well for2ed for2ulas 3 wff-s, or sentences0$ 5tomic !ormulas /in so2e other textbooks' ele2entary for2ulas, pri2e for2ulas0 are defined as follows' a0 7f p is a k-argu2ent predicate constant, and t1, $$$, tk are ter2s, then the string p/t1, $$$, tk0 is an ato2ic for2ula$ b0 There are no other ato2ic for2ulas$

1, 9or the eQuality sy2bol, the SinfixS notation is used' if t1, t2 are ter2s, then /t1^t20 is an ato2ic for2ula$
#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS, the following are exa2ples of ato2ic for2ulas' .a%e x!, Fema%e Britney!, .a%e Britney! /not all for2ulas that are well for2ed, 2ust be true;0, Father x, Britney!, .other Britney, /ohn!, .arrie+ x, y!( 20 %u22ary of the ato2ic for2ulas of the language of first order arith2etic' a0 constants 0 and 1, and all !ariables are ter2s4 b0 if t 1 and t2 are ter2s, then /t1\t20 and /t1]t20 also are ter2s4 c0 ato2ic for2ulas are built only as /t1^t20, where t1 and t2 are ter2s$ &0 7n the language of set theory, there are only two kinds of ato2ic for2ulas' x^y /where x and y are arbitrary !ariables0$

x y , and

7n the language of first order arith2etic, e!en by using the only a!ailable predicate constant S^S ato2ic for2ulas can express a lot of cle!er things' //x\00^x04 //x\y0^/y\x004 //x\/y\:00^//x\y0\:004 //x]00^004 //x]10^x04 //x]y0^/y]x004 //x]/y]:00^//x]y0]:004 ///x\y0]:0^//x]:0\/y]:000$ #9ercise ).0.). 6s the next step, translate the following assertions into the language of first order arith2etic /do not use abbre!iations;0' 2]2^-, 2]2^., /x\y02 ^ x2\2xy\y2$ ("om$ound) <ormulas ;he !ollo:ing de!inition is common !or all $redicate languages. #ach language is s$eci!ic only by its set o! language $rimitives. To write 2ore co2plicated assertions, we will need co2pound for2ulas, built of ato2ic for2ulas by using a fixed set of $ro$ositional connectives and @uanti!iers /an in!ention due to A$ 9rege and <$ %$ #eirce0$ 7n this book, we will use the following set' 72plication sy2bol' G`< 2eans Sif G, then <S, or SG i2plies <S, or S< follows fro2 GS$ <on>unction sy2bol, B C 2eans SG and <S$ is>unction sy2bol, B C 2eans SG, or <, or bothS, i$e$ the so-called nonexclusi!e SorS$ ?egation sy2bol, B 2eans Snot G$ )ni!ersal Quantifier, x B 2eans Sfor all x' GS$ @xistential Quantifier, x B 2eans Sthere is x such that GS$ The widely used eQui!alence connecti!e a can be deri!ed in the following way' Ga< stands for (( B 5C )( C 5 B )) $ 7f you like using the so-called exclusi!e SorS /MG, or <, but not bothN0, you could define G xor < as

1= ( B 6 C ) $ 3arning8 9or progra22ers, con>unction, dis>unction and negation are fa2iliar Slogical operationsS 3 unlike the i2plication that is not used in Snor2alS progra22ing languages$ 7n progra22ing, the so-called 79state2ents, when co2pared to logic, 2ean a different thing' in the state2ent 79 x^y TH@? :'^1=, the condition, x^y is, indeed, a for2ula, but the SconseQuenceS :'^1= is not a for2ula 3 it is an executable state2ent$ 7n logic, in G`< /Sif G, then <S0, G and < both are for2ulas$ 1e define the notion of !ormula of our predicate language as follows' a0 6to2ic for2ulas are for2ulas$ b0 7f G and < are for2ulas, then ( B 5 C ) , ( B C ) , ( B C ) , and ( B ) also are for2ulas /G and < are called sub-for2ulas0$ c0 7f G is a for2ula, and x is an ob>ect !ariable, then /xG0 and /xG0 also are for2ulas /G is called a sub-for2ula0$ d0 /7f you like so,0 there are no other for2ulas$
%ee also' ?otes on *ogic ?otation on the 1eb by Peter .uber$

Kno:ledge %e$resentation by Means o! Predicate Languages

#9am$les$ 10 7n our Slanguage for peopleS, the following are exa2ples of co2pound for2ulas'
(( Father ( x , y ))( .other ( x , y ))) ( x ( y (( Father ( x , y )) 5 ( .a%e ( x ))))) ( x ( y (( .other ( x , y )) 5 ( 7 .a%e ( x ))))) ( x ( y ( .other ( y , x )))) ( x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )))

Sx is a parent of yS Sfathers are 2alesS 3 could ser!e as an a9iom; S2others are not 2alesS 3 could be derived fro2 the axio2s; Seach x has so2e y as a 2otherS 3 could ser!e as an a9iom; 1hat does it 2ean8 7t could ser!e as an a9iom;

x ( y ( 3 (( .other ( x , 3 ) .other ( y , 3 )) 5 ( x = y ))))

x ( y ( 3 (( Father ( x , 3 ) Father ( y , 3 )) 5 ( x = y ))))

1hat does it 2ean8 7t could ser!e as an a9iom;

20 %o2e si2ple exa2ples of co2pound for2ulas in the language of first order arith2etic'

1C
3arning8 %peaking strictly, predicate sy2bols S_S, SbS, S cS, SdS, SeS etc$ do not belong to the language of first order arith2etic$ /u/x^/u\u000 /u///x\u0\10^y00 ( 0< y $ ( x =( y$))) Sx is an e!en nu2berS Sx is less than yS, or, x_y Sx is di!isible by yS, speaking strictly, x_y 2ust be replaced by u///x\u0 \10^y00$

(( 1< x )(( y ( 3 ((( y < x )( 3 < x ))( x=( y3 ))))))) for2ula prime x!, Sx is a pri2e nu2berS, speaking strictly, the & subfor2ulas of the kind x_y should be replaced by their full !ersion of the kind u///x\u0\10^y00$ SThere are infinitely 2any pri2e nu2bersS /one of the first 2athe2atical theore2s, V7 century G<0, speaking strictly, w_x 2ust be replaced by u///w\u0\10^x00, and prime x! 2ust be replaced by the abo!e for2ula$

( - ( x (( - < x )( prime ( x )))))

x y ( 0 < y 5 3 $ ( $ < y x = y3 +$)) 1hat does it 2ean8

&0 %o2e si2ple exa2ples of co2pound for2ulas in the language of set theory'
( y ( y x )) ( 3 (( 3 x ) 5 ( 3 y ))) (( 3 (( 3 x ) 6 ( 3 y ))) 5 ( x = y ))

Sx is a non-e2pty setS Sx is a subset of yS, or xcy 1hat does it 2ean8 1ill ser!e as an a9iom; Sx contains :ero or one 2e2berS Sx is union of y and :S, or x^y):

( y ( 3 (( y x)( 3 x )) 5 y = 3 )) ( $ (( $ x ) 6 (( $ y )( $ 3 ))))

Rf course, having a $redicate language is not enough for expressing all of our knowledge for2ally, i$e$ for co22unicating it to co2puters$ <o2puters do not know in ad!ance, for exa2ple, how to handle sexes$ 1e 2ust tell the2 how to handle these notions by introducing a9ioms$ Thus, the abo!e2entioned for2ulas like as ( x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x ))) , or ( x ( y (( Father ( x , y )) 5 ( .a%e ( x ))))) will be absolutely necessary as a9ioms$ 6s we will see later, language \ axio2s \ logic ^ theory,

1+ i$e$ in fact, to !ormulate all o! our kno:ledge !ormally, :e must create theories. #9ercise ).0.0. Translate the following assertions into our Slanguage for peopleS' Sx is child of yS4 Sx is grand-father of yS4 Sx is brother of xN4 Mx is sister of yS4 #9ercise ).0.+. Translate the following assertions into the language of first order arith2etic' Sx and y do not ha!e co22on di!isorsS /note' 1 is not a di!isor;04 S 2 is not a rational nu2berS$ p /1arning; p 4( 2 = ) , and x ( x x = 2) are not correct solutions$ 1hy80
4

3arning8 .ome ty$ical errors8 10 Trying to say Mfor all xb2, 9/x0N, do not write x ( x > 2 F ( x )) E this would i2ply that x x89!; Gut, how about x^18 The correct !ersion' x x89FF x!!( 20 %o2e co2puter progra22ers do not like using the i2plication connecti!e `, trying to write for2ulas as conditions of 79- or 1H7*@-state2ents, i$e$ by using con>unction, dis>unction and negation only$ This SapproachS 2akes 2ost logical tasks 2uch harder than they really are; 5ore than that E so2e people try saying, for exa2ple, S#ersons are not epart2entsS, as follows' x ( Person ( x )7 ,epartment ( x )) E instead of the correct !ersion' x ( Person ( x ) 5 ,epartment ( x )) ( &0 o not use abbre!iations at this early stage of your studies$ 9or exa2ple, do not write x89!yF x, y! to say that Sfor all x that are b2, there is y such that 9/x, y0S$ 7nstead, you should write x x895yF x, y!!$ %i2ilarly, instead of /a89!bG a, b!, you should write a ( a >2 b G ( a , b )) ( To say Sthere is one and only one x such that 9/x0S, you shouldnBt write :x F x! /at this stage of your studies0, you should write, instead, (( xF ( x ))( x; ( x9 (( F ( x; ) F ( x9 )) 5 ( x; = x9 ))))) ( -0 #redicates cannot be substituted for ob>ect !ariables$ 9or exa2ple, ha!ing & predicate constants -or&ing x, y!, Person x!, ,epartment y!, do not try writing -or&ing Person x!, ,epartment y!! to say that Sonly persons are working, and only in depart2ents<( The correct !erssion' x y ( -or&ing ( x , y ) 5 Person ( x ) ,epartment ( y )) (

20 .0 Trying to say Meach person is working in so2e depart2entN, do not write x y ( Person ( x ) ,epartment ( y ) 5 -or&ing ( x , y )) $ The correct !ersion' x ( Person ( x ) 5 y ( ,epartment ( y )-or&ing ( x , y ))) $ 1hat is the difference8 #9ercise ).0.,$ Try in!enting your own predicate language$ #repare and do your own @xercise 1$2$2 for it$ #9ercise ).0./$ 7n co2puter science, currently, one the 2ost popular 2eans of knowledge representation are the so-called ML class diagrams and A"L /)5* E )nified 5odeling *anguage, R<* E Rb>ect <onstraint *anguage0$ The abo!e diagra2 representing our Mdo2ain of peopleN is an exa2ple$ 7n our Mlanguage of peopleN, put down as 2any a9ioms of the do2ain you can notice in the diagra2$ 9or exa2ple, Me!ery person is either 2ale, or fe2aleN, Mall fathers are 2alesN, Me!ery person has exactly one 2otherN, Ma person can 2arry no 2ore than one personN etc$ ManyDsorted Languages
5aybe, you ha!e to describe two or 2ore kinds of Sob>ectsS that you do not wish to reduce to Ssub-kindsS of one kind of Sob>ectsS /for exa2ple, integer nu2bers and character strings0$ Then you 2ay need introducing for each of your Sdo2ainsS a separate kind /SsortS0 of ob>ect !ariables$ 7n this way you arri!e to the so-called manyDsorted $redicate languages$ 7n such languages' a0 each ob>ect constant 2ust be assigned to so2e sort4 b0 for each function constant, each argu2ent 2ust be assigned to so2e so2e sort, and function !alues 2ust be assigned to a /single0 sort4 c0 for each predicate constant, each argu2ent 2ust be assigned to so2e sort$ 7n 2any-sorted predicate languages, the ter2 and ato2ic for2ula definitons are so2ewhat 2ore co2plicated' building of the ter2 f/t 1, $$$, tk0 or the for2ula p/t1, $$$, tk0 is allowed only, if the sort of the ter2 t i !alues coincides with the sort of the i-th argu2ent of f or p respecti!ely$ 6nd the S2eaningS of Quantifiers depends on the sort of the !ariable used with the2$ 9or exa2ple, x 2eans Sfor all !alues of x fro2 the do2ain of the sort of xS$ Theoretically, 2any-sorted languages can be reduced to one-sorted languages by introduding the corresponding predicates %orti/x0 /Sthe !alue of x belongs to the sort iS0$ %till, in applications of logic /for exa2ple, in co2puter science0 the 2any-sorted approach is usually 2ore natural and 2ore con!enient$ /%ee Chapter ;=( .any>Sorte+ First *r+er Logic, by Hean Aallier$0

3arning about second order languages8

7n our definition of predicate languages only the following kinds of pri2iti!es were used' ob>ect !ariables, ob>ect constants, function constants and predicate constants$ Kou 2ay ask' how about !unction variables and $redicate variables8 9or, you 2ay wish to denote by r San arbitrary propertyS of your Sob>ectsS$ Then, r/x0 would 2ean Sx possess the property rS, and you would be able to say so2ething about Sall propertiesS, for exa2ple, r xy/x^y`/r/x0ar/y00$ 7n this way you would ha!e arri!ed at a second order language;

21
7n such languages, function and predicate !ariables are allowed$ Gut properties lead to sets of ob>ects, for exa2ple, Xx U r/x0Y would 2ean the set of all ob>ects that possess the property r$ Gut, why should we stop at the properties of ob>ects8 How about Sproperties of sets of ob>ectsS etc$8 6s it was detected long ago, all kinds of sets can be fully treated only in set theory; Thus, instead of building your own second order language, you should better try applying your fa!orite /Sfirst orderS0 set theory$ 6n unpleasant conseQuence' the existence of the /2uch less significant0 notion of second order languages forces 2any people to call predicate languages S!irst order languagesS E to e2phasi:e that, in these languages, the only kind of !ariables allowed are ob>ect !ariables$ Rn the other hand, when trying to i2ple2ent realistic !ormal reasoning so!t:are, then using of so2e second order constructs is, as a rule, 2ore efficient than i2ple2enting of a pure first order reasoning$ %ee, for exa2ple, "otices of the A.S, %pecial 7ssue on 9or2al #roof, Vol$ .., ? 11, 200C /a!ailable online0$ 9or details, see' %econd-order-logic$ 6bout second order arithmetic see (e!erse 5athe2atics$ 6bout an al2ost /but not 100T0 successful atte2pt to create a set theory Sas si2ple as logicS /by Aeorg <antor and Aottlob 9rege0 3 see #odnieks V1++=W, %ection 2$2$

Amitting Parentheses Rur for2al definitions of ter2s and for2ulas lead to expressions containing 2any parentheses$ *et us recall, for exa2ple, our for2ula expressing that Sx is a pri2e nu2berS' (( 1 < x )(( y ( 3 ((( y < x )( 3 < x ))( x =( y 3 ))))))) $ %uch for2ulas are an easy reading for co2puters, yet incon!enient for hu2an reading /and e!en 2ore incon!enient 3 for putting the2 correctly0$ 7n the usual 2athe2atical practice /and in progra22ing languages0 we are allowed to i2pro!e the look of our for2ulas by o2itting so2e of the parentheses E according to /so2e of0 the following rules' a0 R2it the outer2ost parentheses, for exa2ple, we 2ay write 6`/G`<0 instead of the for2ally correct /6`/G`<00$ 7n this way we 2ay i2pro!e the final look of our for2ulas$ %till, if we wish to use such for2ulas as parts of 2ore co2plicated for2ulas, we 2ust restore the outer2ost parentheses, for exa2ple' /6`/G`<00` $ b0 1e 2ay write, for exa2ple, si2ply' x + y + 3 + $ , x y3 $ , A BC , , A BC , , x y 3 $ F instead of the 2ore for2al //x\y0\:0\u, //x]y0]:0]u, (( A B )C ) , , (( A B )C ) , , x/y/:/u/90000$ 7n this way we can si2plify the abo!e expression Sx is a pri2e nu2berS as follows'

22 ( 1< x )( 7( y 3 (( y < x )( 3 < x )( x =( y 3 ))))) $ c0 1e can apply the so-called $riority rules$ 9or exa2ple, the priority rank of 2ultiplications is supposed to be higher than the priority rank of additions$ This rule allows writing x\y]: instead of the 2ore for2al x\/y]:0 E because of its higher priority rank, 2ultiplication 2ust be Sperfor2ed firstS$ The 2ost popular priority rules are the following' c10 The priority rank of !unction constants is higher than the priority rank of $redicate constants$ This allows, for exa2ple, writing x]y ^ y]x instead of /x]y0^/y]x0, or x y 3 E instead of x ( y 3 ) $ c20 The priority rank of $redicate constants is higher than the priority rank of $ro$ositional connectives and @uanti!iers$ This allows, for exa2ple, writing y < x 3 < x instead of ( y < x )( 3 < x ) $ c&0 The priority rank of @uanti!iers is higher than the priority rank of $ro$ositional connectives$ This allows, for exa2ple, writing x F y G instead of ( x ( F ))( y ( G )) , or writing x F instead of ( x ( F )) $ c-0 The priority rank of negations is higher than the priority rank of conBunctions and disBunctions$ This allows, for exa2ple, writing A B instead of ( 7 A)( 7 B ) $ c.0 The priority rank of conBunctions and disBunctions is higher than the priority rank of im$lications$ This allows, for exa2ple, writing A 5 A B instead of A 5 ( A B ) $ 7n the usual 2athe2atical practice so2e additional priority rules are used, but so2e of the2 are not allowed in the co22on progra22ing languages$ To a!oid confusions do not use too 2any priority rules si2ultaneously; 6ccording to the abo!e priority rules, we can si2plify the abo!e expression Sx is a pri2e nu2berS obtaining a for2 that is 2uch easier for hu2an reading /but is so2ewhat co2plicated for co2puters to process it0' 1< x 7 y 3 ( y < x 3 < x x = y 3 ) $ 6s you see, all the abo!e rules are 2ere abbre!iations$ 7n principle, you could use any other set of abbre!iation rules accepted by your audience$ 7f co2puters would do logic the2sel!es, they would not need such rules at all /except, 2aybe, for displaying so2e of their results to hu2ans, but why80$ #9ercise ).0.1. STranslateS the following assertions into our Slanguage for peopleS' Sx and y are siblingsS4 Sx and y are brothersS4 Mx and y are sistersN4

2& Mx is cousin of yN4 Mparents of x and y are 2arriedN4 construct for2ulas expressing as 2uch well-known relationships between people as you can$ Gut how about the predicate 5ncestor(9, y) E Sx is an ancestor of yS8 <ould it be expressed as a for2ula of our Slanguage for peopleS8 The first idea E let us SdefineS this predicate recursi!ely' x y ( Father ( x , y ) .other ( x , y ) 5 Ancestor ( x , y )) 4 x y 3 ( Ancestor ( x , y ) Ancestor ( y , 3 ) 5 Ancestor ( x , 3 )) $ The second rule declares the transiti!ity property of the predicate$ The abo!e two for2ulas are a9ioms, allowing to deri!e the essential properties of the predicate Ancestor x, y!$ Gut how about a single for2ula 9/x, y0 in the Slanguage for peopleS, expressing that Sx is an ancestor of yS8 %uch a for2ula should be a tricky co2bination of for2ulas Father x, y!, .other x, y! and x0y$ 6nd such a for2ula is im$ossible; %ee "arlos 5reces$ #h$ $ Thesis, 2000, /a non-tri!ial;0 Theore2 1$2$ #9ercise ).0.2. STranslateS the following assertions into the language of first order arith2etic' Sx and y are twin pri2esS /exa2ples of twin pairs' &,.4 .,=4 11,1&4 1=,1+4$$$0, SThere are infinitely 2any pairs of twin pri2esS /the fa2ous Twin #ri2e <on>ecture0, Sx is a power of 2S /1arning; n/x^2n0 is not a correct solution$ 1hy8 Gecause exponentiation does not belong to the language of first order arith2etic$0, S@ach positi!e e!en integer d- can be expressed as a su2 of two pri2esS /the fa2ous Aoldbach <on>ecture0$ <ree Variables and 'ound Variables The abo!e expression Sx is a pri2e nu2berS' 1< x y 3 ( y < x 3 < x x = y 3 ) contains & !ariables' x E occurs - ti2es in ter2s, y E 2 ti2es in ter2s and 1 ti2e in Quantifiers, : E occurs 2 ti2es in ter2s and 1 ti2e in Quantifiers$ Rf course, x is here a SfreeS !ariable 3 in the sense that the Struth !alueS of the for2ula depends on particular S!aluesS taken by x$ Rn the contrary, the Struth !alueS of the for2ula does not depend on the particular S!aluesS taken by the two SboundS !ariables y and : E the Quantifiers y, : force these !ariables to Srun across their entire rangeS$ 5ore precisely, first, we will count only the occurrences of !ariables in ter2s,

2not in Quantifiers$ 6nd second, we will define a particular occurrence o x of a !ariable x in /a ter2 of0 a for2ula 9 as a !ree occurrence or a bound occurrence according to the following rules' a0 7f 9 does not contain Quantifiers x, x, then ox is free in 9$ b0 7f 9 is xA or xA, then ox is bound in 9$ c10 7f 9 is G H , G H , or A`H, and ox is free in A /or in H0, then ox is free in 9$ c20 7f 9 is fA, yA, or yA, where y is not x, and ox is free in A, then ox is free in 9$ d10 7f 9 is G H , G H , or A`H, and ox is bound in A /or in H0, then ox is bound in 9$ d20 7f 9 is fA, yA, or yA /where y is any !ariable, x included0, and o x is bound in A, then ox is bound in 9$ Thus, the abo!e for2ula 1< x y 3 ( y < x 3 < x x = y 3 ) contains free occurrences of x, 2 bound occurrences of y, and 2 bound occurrences of :$ #9ercise ).0.G$ Verify that an occurrence of x in 9 cannot be free and bound si2ultaneously$ /Hint' assu2e that it is not the case, and consider the seQuence of all sub-for2ulas of 9 containing this particular occurrence of x$0 9or2ally, we can use for2ulas containing free and bound occurrences of a single !ariable si2ultaneously, for exa2ple, x >1 5 x ( x >1) $ Rr, 2any bound occurrences of a single !ariable, for exa2ple, ( xF ( x ) xG ( x )) xH ( x ) 2eans the sa2e as ( xF ( x ) yG ( y )) 3H ( 3 ) $ %till, we do not reco22end using a single !ariable in 2any different roles in a single for2ula$ %uch for2ulas do not cause proble2s for co2puters, but they 2ay beco2e incon!enient for hu2an reading$ *et us say, that x is a !ree variable of the for2ula 9, if and only if 9 contains at least one free occurrence of x, or 9 does not contain occurrences of x at all$ 7f a for2ula contains free !ariables, i$e$ !ariables that are not bound by Quantifiers /for exa2ple' x = 0 x =1 0, then the Struth !alueS of such for2ulas 2ay depend on particular !alues assigned to free !ariables$ 9or exa2ple, the latter for2ula is StrueS for x^1, yet it is SfalseS for x^2$ 9or2ulas that do not contain free occurrences of !ariables, are called closed !ormulas,

2. for exa2ple' - x ( - < x prime ( x )) $ <losed for2ulas represent Sdefinite assertions about ob>ects of theoryS, they are expected to be /but not always really are0 either StrueS, or SfalseS$ ;erm .ubstitution To say that x is a free !ariable of the for2ula 9, we 2ay wish to write 9/x0 instead of si2ply 9$ (eplacing all free occurrences of x by a ter2 t yields an SinstanceS of the for2ula 9$ 7t would be natural to denote this SinstanceS by 9/t0$ 9or exa2ple, if 9/x0 is y/y\y^x0 and t is :]:\:, then 9/t0, or 9/:]:\:0 will denote y/y\y^:]:\:0$ Howe!er, if t would be y]y\y, then 9/t0, or 9/y]y\y0 would be y/y\y^y]y\y0$ 7s this really 9/y]y\y08 Thus, so2eti2es, substitutions can lead to cra:y results$ 6nother exa2ple' in our expression Sx is a pri2e nu2berS, let us replace x by y$ 1ill the resulting for2ula 2ean Sy is a pri2e nu2berS8 *etBs see' 1< y y 3 ( y < y 3 < y y = y 3 ) $ %ince y_y is always false, the second part fy:/$$$0 is true, hence, the latter for2ula 2eans si2ply that S1 is less than yS, and not that Sy is a pri2e nu2berS$ Rf course, we failed because we replaced a free !ariable x by a !ariable y in such a way that so2e !ree occurrence of x beca2e bound by a Quantifiers for y /y0$ 7n this way we de!ormed the initial meaning of our for2ula$ The following si2ple rule allows to a!oid such situations$ %uppose, x is a free !ariable of the for2ula 9$ 1e will say that the substitution <(9Ht) /i$e$ the substitution of the ter2 t for x in the for2ula 90 is admissible, if and only if no free occurrences of x in 9 are located under Quantifiers that bind !ariables contained in t$ 7f the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible, then, by replacing all free occurrences of x in 9 by t, of course, we do not change the initial 2eaning of the for2ula 9/x0, and hence, we 2ay safely denote the result of this substitution by 9/t0$ #9ercise ).0.*. 7s xPy an ad2issible substitution in the following for2ulas8 1hy8 x = 0 y ( y > 3 ) 4 x =0 y ( y > x ) $

2, #9ercise ).0.)I. a0 5athe2aticians' think o!er the analogy between bound !ariables in logic and bound !ariables in su2 expressions and integrals$ b0 #rogra22ers' think o!er the analogy between bound !ariables in logic and loop counters in progra2s$

).+. 59ioms o! Logic? Minimal .ystem, "onstructive .ystem and "lassical .ystem
;he Problem o! %easoning ?ow we go on to the second phase of for2ali:ation' after ha!ing defined a forma% %ang$age /predicate language0 allowing to put down propositions about our do2ain of interest, and ha!ing for2ulated so2e of the propositions as axioms, and 2ust introduce so2e means of reasoning allowing to deri!e other state2ents that are MtrueN of our do2ain$ 7ndeed, ha!ing for2ulated so2e frag2ent of our knowledge as a set of axio2s 61, $$$, 6n in so2e predicate language *, we do not think that 61, $$$, 6n represent all state2ents that are MtrueN of the ob>ects we are trying to in!estigate$ 5any other state2ents will !ollo: fro2 61, $$$, 6n as conseQuences$ #9am$le$ 6ssu2e, we ha!e for2ulated the following axio2s in our Slanguage for peopleS' x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) 4 x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) , and the following facts' .a%e ( /ohn ) ? Fema%e ( Britney ) $ Then we do not need to for2ulate 7 Fema%e ( /ohn ) ? 7 .a%e ( Britney ) as separate facts$ These facts can be deri!ed fro2 the already registered facts$ The proble2 of reasoning' Sfor2ula 9 follows fro2 6 1, $$$, 6nS, what does it 2ean8 The answer 2ust be absolutely precise, if we wish to teach reasoning to com$uters$ .olution o! the Problem 9irst of all, let us notice that there are axio2s and rules of inference that are applicable to any predicate languages, independently of the specific features of their do2ains$ %uch axio2s and rules could be called Mgenerally !alidN$ 9or exa2ple, assu2e, so2e for2ula 9 has the following for2' ( B 5 , ) 5 (( C 5 , ) 5 ( BC 5 , )) , where G, <, are so2e for2ulas$ Then 9 is MtrueN independently of the

2= specific facts represented in the for2ulas G, <, $ %i2ilarly, the following rule of inference 5# is applicable independently of the facts represented in the for2ulas G, <' Ha!ing deri!ed the for2ulas G, G`<, deri!e the for2ula <$ 7f we ha!e G` and G` already deri!ed, then 3 by applying the rule 5# to the abo!e for2ula 9 3 we deri!e that B C 5 , $ ?ow, we will try for2ulating a co2plete set of Sgenerally !alidS principles /axio2s and rules of inference0 of Slogically correct reasoningS$ SAenerally !alidS 2eans that these principles will be applicable to any predicate language$ 7$e$ for any fixed predicate language *, we wish to for2ulate a unifor2 list of logical a9ioms and in!erence rules that would allow for2ali:ation of principles of reasoning that are S!alidN for all languages$ %uch principles are called so2eti2es Spure logicalS principles$ The existence of such general principles /and e!en, in a sense, a co2plete syste2 of the20 is the result of a 2.00 year long history of great disco!eries /or in!entions8 E see below0$ 6ristotle /&C--&22 G<0, Aottlob 9rege /1C-C-1+2.0, <harles %anders #eirce /1C&+-1+1-0$ Gertrand (ussell /1C=2-1+=00 E SThe Princi$ia Mathematica is a three-!olu2e work
on the foundations of 2athe2atics, written by Gertrand (ussell and 6lfred ?orth 1hitehead and published in 1+10-1+1&$ 7t is an atte2pt to deri!e all 2athe2atical truths fro2 a welldefined set of axio2s and inference rules in sy2bolic logic$ The 2ain inspiration and 2oti!ation for the #rincipia was 9regeBs earlier work on logic, which had led to so2e contradictions disco!ered by (ussell$S /according to 1ikipedia0$

a!id Hilbert /1C,2-1+-&0, 1ilhel2 6cker2ann /1C+,-1+,20$

D.&ilbert, 3.5ckermann$ Arund:gge der theoretischen *ogik$ Gerlin /%pringer0, 1+2C /see also' Hilbert and 6cker2annBs 1+2C *ogic Gook by %tanley ?$ Gurris0$

The first !ersion of logical axio2s was introduced in 1C=+ by A$ 9rege in his abo!e-2entioned Begriffsschrift$ The next i2portant !ersion was proposed in 1+10-1+1& by G$ (ussell and 6$ 1hitehead in their fa2ous book Principia .athematica$ 6nd finally, in 1+2C $ Hilbert and 1$ 6cker2ann published in their abo!e-2entioned book, in a sense, the final !ersion of logical axio2s$ 5odifications of this !ersion are now used in all textbooks of 2athe2atical logic$ 7n our !ersion, the axio2s will be represented by 2eans of the so-called a9iom schemas /progra22ers 2ight call the2 temp%ates0$ @ach sche2a /te2plate0 represents an infinite, yet easily recogni:able collection of single axio2s$ 9or

2C exa2ple, sche2a *&' B C 5 B 2ay represent the following axio2s /Sinstances of the sche2aS0 in the language of first order arith2etic' x= y x= x 5 x= y , 11 =11+1=1 +1 5 11=1 , and 2any other axio2s' take any for2ulas G, <, and you will obtain an axio2 B C 5 B $ 1e will not specify properties of the e@uivalence connecti!e in axio2s$ 1e will regard this connecti!e as a deri!ed one' Ga< will be used as an abbre!iation of ( B 5 C )(C 5 B ) $ 59ioms o! Logic %uppose, we ha!e specified so2e predicate language *$ 1e adopt the following 1. axio2 sche2as as the logical a9ioms !or the language L. 7n the axio2 sche2as *1-*11 below, G, < and language *$ are any for2ulas in the

The first two axio2 sche2as *1, *2 represent the SdefinitionS of the i2plication connecti!e' L)' B 5 ( C 5 B ) /what does it 2ean80,

L0' ( B 5 ( C 5 , )) 5 (( B 5 C ) 5 ( B 5 ,)) /what does it 2ean80$ The following axio2 sche2as *&3*. represent the SdefinitionS of the 6? connecti!e /con>unction0' L+' L,' L/'

B C 5 B /what does it 2ean80,

B C 5 C /what does it 2ean80, B 5 ( C 5 B C ) /what does it 2ean80$

The following axio2 sche2as *,3*C represent the SdefinitionS of the /nonexclusi!e0 R(-connecti!e /dis>unction0' L1'

B 5 BC /what does it 2ean80,

L2' C 5 BC /what does it 2ean80, LG' ( B 5 , ) 5 (( C 5 , ) 5 ( BC 5 , )) /what does it 2ean80$

The next xio2 sche2a *+ represents the SdefinitionS of the ?R-connecti!e$ 7n

2+ fact, it is a for2al !ersion of a proof 2ethod well-known in 2athe2atics E refutation by deri!ing a contradiction /)e+$ctio a+ abs$r+$m0' L*' ( B 5 C ) 5 (( B 5 C ) 5 B ) /what does it 2ean80$ The next axio2 sche2a *10 represents the fa2ous principle S<ontradiction 72plies 6nythingS /Ex contra+ictione se4$it$r 4$o+%ibet, or Ex fa%so se4$it$r 4$o+%ibet0' L)I' B 5 ( B 5 C ) /what does it 2ean80$ The following axio2 sche2a *11 represents the fa2ous La: o! #9cluded Middle /Terti$m non +at$r!' L))'

B B /what does it 2ean80$

The abo!e 11 sche2as /plus the .o+$s Ponens rule of inference, see below0 represent the classical $ro$ositional logic in the language *$ ?ow, the SdefinitionsS of the uni!ersal and existential Quantifiers follow$ 7n the following axio2 sche2as *12, *1&, 9 is any for2ula, and t is a ter2 such that the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible /in particular, t 2ay be x itself0' L)0' x F ( x ) 5 F ( t ) 2ean80, L)+' F ( t ) 5 x F ( x ) 2ean80$ /in particular, x F ( x ) 5 F ( x ) , what does it /in particular, F ( x ) 5 x F ( x ) , what does it

7n the following sche2as *1-, *1., 9 is any for2ula, and A is a for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable' L),' x ( G 5 F ( x )) 5 ( G 5 x F ( x )) /what does it 2ean80, L)/' x ( F ( x ) 5 G) 5 ( x F ( x ) 5 G ) /what does it 2ean80$ %ules o! In!erence 7n the following rules of inference, G, < and 9 are any for2ulas$ Modus Ponens' G`<4 G U- < /what does it 2ean80$ Generalization' 9/x0 U- x F ( x ) /what does it 2ean80$ This list of logical axio2s and rules of inference represents the so-called classical $redicate logic in the predicate language * /or, si2ply E the classical logic in the language *0$

&0

.ome o! the logical a9ioms are >:rong, but use!ul>8 The axio2s *1, *2 represent the /currently0 2ost popular !ersion of SdefiningS the i2plication connecti!e$ 6bout other /eQui!alent0 !ersions E containing & or - axio2s E see Hilbert, Gernays V1+&-W /<hapter 7770 and @xercise 1$.$2$ The axio2 *+ represents the /currently0 2ost popular !ersion of SdefiningS the negation connecti!e$ 6bout other /eQui!alent0 !ersions E see Hilbert, Gernays V1+&-W /<hapter 7770, @xercise 2$-$2$ Three of the abo!e axio2 sche2as see2 to be /at least partly0 proble2atic$ 9or exa2ple, how do you find the funny axio2 *10' B 5 ( B 5 C ) 8 7f fG and G were true si2ultaneously, then anything were true8 Ex contra+ictione se4$it$r 4$o+%ibet@ 7s this a really StrueS axio28 Rf course, it is not$ %till, this does not 2atter' we do not need to know, were < StrueS or not, if fG and G were StrueS si2ultaneously$ Gy assu2ing that Sif fG and G were true si2ultaneously, then anything were trueS :e greatly sim$li!y our logical a$$aratus$ 9or exa2ple, we will pro!e in %ection 2$, that, in the classical logic, ffG`G$ This si2ple for2ula canBt be pro!ed without the Scra:yS axio2 *10 /see %ection 2$C0$ 7n fact, the first axio2 * 1' G`/<`G0 also is funny$ 7f G is /unconditionally0 true, then G follows fro2 <, e!en if < has nothing in co22on with G8 5oreo!er, in @xercise 1$-$2/d0 we will see that the axio2s *1, *+ allow pro!ing that fG, G U- f<, i$e$ if fG and G were true si2ultaneously, then anything were false /thus, in a sense, * 1 contains already .0T of * 10;0$ 6fter this, could we think of *1 as a really StrueS axio28 Rf course, we canBt$ %till, this does not 2atter' if G is /unconditionally0 true, then we do not need to know, follows G fro2 < or not$ Gy assu2ing that Sif G is true, then G follows fro2 anythingS :e greatly sim$li!y our logical a$$aratus$ The abo!e two pheno2ena are called $arado9es o! the material im$lication, see #aradoxes of 5aterial 72plication by #eter %uber, and 9alsity 72plies 6nything by 6lexander Gogo2olny$ 5ay our decision to Sgreatly si2plifyS the logical apparatus ha!e also so2e undesirable conseQuences8 *et us consider the following for2ula 9/x0' y/child/x, y0`9e2ale/y00$ 7t see2s, 9/x0 is intended to 2ean' S6ll the children of x are fe2aleS$ Howe!er, in our syste2 of logic, 9/x0 is regarded as true also, if x does not ha!e children at all; 7f you do not ha!e children at all, then all your children are fe2ale; Rr 2ale8 Rr s2art8 @tc$ %ee2s funny, but is, in fact, har2less$$$

&1

"onstructive Logic %till, the 2ost serious proble2 is caused by the axio2 * 11' G!fG E the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle$ How can we think of *11 as a StrueS axio2, if /according to AFdelBs 7nco2pleteness Theore20 each sufficiently strong consistent theory contains undecidable propositions8 7$e$ we postulate that either G, or fG S2ust be trueS, yet for so2e G we cannot pro!e neither G, nor fG; "nowing that G!fG is StrueS 2ay inspire us to work on the proble2, but it 2ay appear useless, if we do not succeed$$$ %hould we retain *11 as an axio2 after this8 %o2e other strange conse@uences of *11 also should be 2entioned /see @xercise 2$,$-0' B ( B 5 C ) , ( B 5 C )(C 5 B ) , (( B 5C ) 5 B ) 5 B /the so-called PeirceJs La:0$ 9or these /and so2e other0 reasons so2e people re>ect * 11 as a S!alidS logical axio2$ The abo!e list of 1. axio2 sche2as as it stands is called the classical logic$ Gy excluding *11 fro2 the list the so-called constructive /historically, and in 2ost textbooks E intuitionistic0 logic is obtained$ 6s a concept, it was introduced by *uit:en @gbertus Han Grouwer in 1+0C'
L. #. K. 'rou:er. e onbetrouwbaarheid der logische principes /in utch 3 S The unreliability of the logical principlesS 0, TiA+schrift 'oor BiAsbegeerte, 2 /1+0C0, pp$1.2-1.C$

GrouwerBs 2ain ob>ection was against non-constructi!e proofs which are enabled 2ainly by Si2properS use of the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle$ 9or elegant exa2ples of non-constructi!e proofs see <onstructi!e 5athe2atics by ouglas Gridges in %tanford @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy$ 6ote. 6 si2ilar kind of non-constructi!e reasoning is represented by the socalled ouble ?egation *aw' ffG`G, see %ection 2$,$ 6s a for2al syste2, the intuitionistic logic was for2ulated by 6rend Heyting in 1+&0'
5. &eyting. ie for2alen (egeln der intuitionistischen 5athe2atik$ Sit3$ngsberichte +er Pre$ssischen A&a+emie +er Bissenschaften, Physi&a%isch>mathematische C%asse , 1+&0, pp$-2.,$

The constructi!e concept of logic differs fro2 the classical one 2ainly in its interpretation of dis>unction and existence assertions'

&2 E To pro!e G!< constructively, you 2ust pro!e G, or pro!e <$ To pro!e B C by using the classical logic, you are allowed to assu2e ( BC ) as a hypothesis to deri!e a contradiction$ Then, by the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle ( B'C )( B'C ) you obtain B C $ Ha!ing only such a Snegati!eS proof, you 2ay be unable to deter2ine, which part of the dis>unction G!< is true E G, or <, or both$ "nowing that B C is StrueS 2ay inspire you to work on the proble2, but it 2ay appear useless, if you do not succeed$$$ E To pro!e xG/x0 constructively, you 2ust pro!ide a particular !alue of x such that G/x0 is true$ To pro!e xG/x0 by using the classical logic, you are allowed to assu2e xfG/x0 as a hypothesis to deri!e a contradiction$ Then, by the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle xB ( x ) xB ( x ) you obtain xG/x0$ Ha!ing only such a Snegati!eS proof, you 2ay be unable to find a particular x for which G/x0 is true$ "nowing that xG/x0 is StrueS 2ay inspire you to work on the proble2, but it 2ay appear useless, if you do not succeed$$$ 6ote$ 7nfor2ally, we 2ay regard existence assertions as Shuge dis>unctionsS$ 9or exa2ple, in the language of first order arith2etic, xG/x0 could be SthoughtS as B ( 0) B ( 1 ) B ( 2 )$$$ , i$e$ as an infinite Sfor2ulaS$ Thus, the abo!e two theses are, in a sense, SeQui!alentS$ The constructi!e /intuitionist0 logic is one of the great disco!eries in 2athe2atical logic E surprisingly, a co2plete syste2 of constructi!e reasoning /as we will see later, in %ection -$-0 can be obtained si2ply by dropping the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle fro2 the list of !alid logical principles$
%ee also 7ntuitionistic *ogic by Hoan 5oscho!akis in %tanford @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy$ *uit:en @gbertus Han Grouwer /1CC1-1+,,0' SHe re>ected in 2athe2atical proofs the #rinciple of the @xcluded 5iddle, which states that any 2athe2atical state2ent is either true or false$ 7n 1+1C he published a set theory, in 1+1+ a 2easure theory and in 1+2& a theory of functions all de!eloped without using the #rinciple of the @xcluded 5iddle$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ S<o2o Heinrich %chol: solia decir en sus cursos' no son ni Heidegger ni %artre los !erdaderos reno!adores de la filosofia, sino Grouwer porQue shlo il ha atacado el bastihn dos !eces 2ilenario del platonis2o' la concepcihn de los entes 2ate2aticos co2o cosas en si$S /Quoted after 6ndris ($ (aggio, @scritos <o2pletos, Prometeo Libros, 20020$

Minimal Logic Gy excluding both *10 and *11 the so-called minimal logic is obtained$ 7t was introduced by 7ngebrigt Hohansson in 1+&,'
I.Kohansson. er 5ini2alkalkgl, ein redu:ierter intuitionistischer 9or2alis2us$ Compositio .athematica, 1+&,, Vol$ -, ?1, pp$11+-1&,$

6s a separate concept, the 2ini2al logic is 2uch less significant than the constructi!e logic$ 7ndeed, since it allows pro!ing of fG, G U- f< /in a sense,

&& .0T of *10;0, dropping of *10 is not a !ery big step$ <irst Arder ;heories Ha!ing defined our predicate language *, and ha!ing for2ulated for * all the logical axio2s and rules of inference, do we need 2ore8 To co2plete the for2ali:ation of our infor2al !ision of our do2ain of interest, we 2ust for2ulate at least so2e specific axio2s describing the specific feat$res of the +omain$ *ogical axio2s and rules of inference are !alid for any do2ains, i$e$ they are Mcontent-freeN in the sense that, by using the2 only, one cannot deri!e specific infor2ation about the do2ain$ 9or exa2ple, one cannot deri!e fro2 /any0 logic, that x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) $ To co22unicate this fact to the co2puter, we 2ust for2ulate it as a specific axiom$ 6nd, as we will pro!e in %ection -$&, we will ne!er need introducing of specific r$%es of inference$ 6ll we need are the two logical rules of inference 3 .o+$s Ponens and Genera%i3ation$ Thus, as the result of the for2ali:ation process, we will obtain the so-called !irst order theories$ @ach first order theory T includes' a0 a specific predicate language */T04 b0 logical a9ioms and rules of inference for this language /classical or constructi!e !ersion 2ay be adopted, see below04 c0 a set of s$eci!ic /nonDlogical) a9ioms of T$
6s the first exa2ple, letBs use our Slanguage for peopleS to build a Mtheory for peopleN$ @xa2ples of instances of logical axio2s for the Mlanguage for peopleN' *1' x ( .a%e ( x ) 5 ( Fema%e ( x ) 5 .a%e ( x ))) 4 *,' x y ( .other ( x , y ) 5 .other ( x , y ) Father ( x , y )) 4 *11' .a%e ( /ohn ).a%e ( /ohn ) 4 *12' x ( Fema%e ( x )) 5 Fema%e ( Britney ) 4 etc$ 6nd letBs introduce the following non-logical axio2s'
x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) 4 x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) 4 x y ( Father ( x , y ) 5 .a%e ( x )) 4 x ( y ( 3 (( Father ( x , 3 ) Father ( y , 3 )) 5 ( x = y ))))

$$$

&#9ercise ).+.). @xtend this list of axio2s as far as you can$ 7s your list co2plete8 1hat do you 2ean by Mco2pleteN8 6nother exa2ple of a first order theory #eano arith2etic0' The language of #6' a0 The constants 0 and 1, and all !ariables are ter2s$ b0 7f t1 and t2 are ter2s, then /t1\t20 and /t1]t20 also are ter2s$ c0 6to2ic for2ulas are built as /t1^t20, where t1 and t2 are ter2s$ %ince we can use, for exa2ple, the expression 2x 2-&y2-1^0 as a shortcut for /1\10]x]x^/1\1\10]y]y\1, we can say si2ply that, in first order arith2etic, ato2ic for2ulas of are arbitrary iophantine eQuations$ 7nstances of logical axio2s *1' x =0 5 ( y =1 5 x = 0) 4 *,' x = y 5 x = y 3 =1 4 *11' 0= 17 ( 0= 1) 4 *12' x ( x = 1 ) 5 x = 1 4 etc$ The specific /non-logical0 axio2s of first order arith2etic' x^x, x^y`y^x, x^y`/y^:`x^:0, x^y`x\1^y\1, f/0^x\10, x\1^y\1`x^y, x\0^x, x\/y\10^/x\y0\1, x]0^0, x]/y\10^/x]y0\x, B ( 0 ) x ( B ( x ) 5 B ( x + 1 )) 5 xB ( x ) , where G is any for2ula$ The axio2s =-10 represent recursi!e definitions of addition and 2ultiplication$ 6s the last the so-called induction schema is listed$ 9or the 2ost popular a9iom system o! set theory 3 see Ler2elo-9raenkelBs set theory$ for the language of first order arith2etic'

E the so-called !irst order arithmetic P5 /also called

Proo!s and ;heorems 7n general, any seQuence of for2ulas 9 1, 92, $$$, 92 could be regarded as a /correct or incorrect0 !ormal $roo! /or si2ply, a proof0 of its last for2ula 92$ 7n a correct $roo!, for2ulas can play only the following roles'

&. a0 Axioms$ %o2e for2ulas 2ay be instances of logical or non-logical axio2s$ b0 Conse4$ences of earlier for2ulas, obtained by using rules of inference$ 9or exa2ple, if 92. is 6, and 9&- is 6`G, and 9.1 is G, then we can say that 9.1 has been obtained fro2 92. and 9&- by using the .o+$s Ponens rule$ Rr, if 9,2 is </x0, and 9,& is x</x0, then we can say that 9,& has been obtained fro2 9,2 by using the Genera%i3ation rule$ c0 Hypotheses$ %o2e for2ulas 2ay appear in the proof as Spro!ed elsewhereS, or e!en without any >ustification, si2ply by assu2ing that they are StrueS$ Thus, the following notation can describe the actual status of a for2al proof' VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G, where T is a first order theory /it deter2ines which for2ulas are axio2s and which are not0, 61, 62, $$$, 6n are all the hypotheses used in the proof, and G is the for2ula pro!ed by the proof$ @ach for2ula in such a proof 2ust be either an axio2, or a hypothesis fro2 the set 61, 62, $$$, 6n, or it 2ust be obtained fro2 earlier for2ulas /in this proof0 by using a rule of inference$ Kou 2ay read the abo!e notation as Sin theory T, by using for2ulas 61, 62, $$$, 6n as hypotheses, the for2ula G can be pro!edS$ 9or the first exa2ples of real for2al proofs see the next %ection 1$-, Theore2 1$-$1 and Theore2 1$-$2$ 7n the real 2athe2atical practice, when pro!ing VTW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U- G, we 2ay apply so2e theore2 D that already has been pro!ed earlier$ 7f we would si2ply insert D into our for2al proof, then, for2ally, this would yield only a proof of VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, D U- G, i$e$ D would be Qualified as a hypothesis$ To obtain the desired for2al proof of VTW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U- G, we 2ust insert not only D itself, but the entire $roo! of D; 7n this way we obtain the following ;heorem ).+.). 7f there is a proof VTW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, D U- G, and a proof VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- D, then there is a proof of VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G$ Proo!. The proof of VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, D U- G is a seQuence of for2ulas 9 1, 92, $$$, D, $$$, 92, G, and the proof of VTW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U- D is so2e seQuence of for2ulas A1, A2, $$$, Ap, D$ *et us replace D by A1, A2, $$$, Ap, D' 91, 92, $$$, A1, A2, $$$, Ap, D, $$$, 92, G, and eli2inate the duplicate for2ulas$ This seQuence is a proof of VTW' 6 1,

&, 62, $$$, 6n U- G$ D$@$ $ 7f, in so2e proof, hypotheses are not used at all, then we 2ay write si2ply VTW' U- G, or e!en T U- G, and say that G is a theorem of theory T$ Rf course, by using axio2s directly one al2ost ne!er can pro!e really co2plicated theore2s$ %till, we can retain our si2ple for2al definition of the notion of theore2 because of the following "orollary ).+.). 7f there is a proof of VTW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G, and proofs of VTW' U- 61, VTW' U- 62, $$$, VTW' U- 6n, then there is a proof of VTW' U- G$ Proo!. 722ediately, by Theore2 1$&$1$ "onsistency %o2eti2es, a see2ingly plausible set of axio2s allows deri!ing of contradictions /the 2ost striking exa2ple E (ussellBs paradox in the Snai!eS set theory0$ 6 for2ula 9 is called a contradiction in the theory T, if and only if VTW' U- 9 and VTW' U- f9, i$e$ if T pro!es and dispro!es 9 si2ultaneously$ Theories containing contradictions are called inconsistent theories$ Thus, T is called a consistent theory4 if and only if T does not allow deri!ing of contradictions$ ?or2ally, for a first order theory, the set of all theore2s is infinite, and, therefore, consistency cannot be veri!ied em$irically$ 1e 2ay only hope to establish this desirable property by 2eans of so2e theoretical $roo! /see #odnieks V1++=W, %ection .$- for a 2ore detailed discussion of this proble20$ 9or theories adopting the abo!e logical axio2s, inconsistency is, in a sense, Sthe worst possible propertyS$ 7ndeed, the axio2 * 10' B 5 ( B 5 C ) says that if a theory allows deri!ing a contradiction, then, in this theory, anything is pro!able$ 7n %ection 2$- we will E without *10 E pro!e .0T of it' B 5 ( B 5 C ) $ Thus, e!en without *10' if a theory allows deri!ing a contradiction, then, in this theory, anything is dispro!able$ 7s consistency enough for a theory to be SperfectS8 7n %ection -$& we will pro!e the so-called 5odel @xistence Theore2' if a first order theory is consistent, then there is a S2odelS /a kind of S2athe2atical realityS0 where all its axio2s and theore2s are StrueS$ "om$leteness 7f a for2ula contains free !ariables, i$e$ !ariables that are not bound by Quantifiers /for exa2ple' x = 0 x =1 0, then the Struth !alueS of such

&= for2ulas 2ay depend on particular !alues assigned to free !ariables$ 9or exa2ple, the latter for2ula is StrueS for x^1, yet it is SfalseS for x^2$ 9or2ulas that do not contain free occurrences of !ariables, are called closed !ormulas, for exa2ple' - x ( - < x prime ( x )) $ <losed for2ulas represent Sdefinite assertions about the ob>ects of our theoryS, and they are expected to be either StrueS, or SfalseS$ Rr, in a first order theory, they are expected to be either pro!able, or dispro!able /refutable0$ The abo!e closed for2ula /stating that Sthere are infinitely 2any pri2e nu2bersS0 is pro!able E if our theory is first order arith2etic$ T is called a com$lete theory, if and only if for each closed for2ula 9 in the language of T' VTW' U- 9 or VTW' U- f9, i$e$ if and only if T pro!es or dispro!es any closed for2ula of its language$ 7n other words' a co2plete theory can sol!e any proble2 fro2 the do2ain of its co2petence$ 7n an incom$lete theory, so2e closed for2ulas /Sdefinite assertions about the ob>ects of theoryS0 can be neither pro!ed, not dispro!ed$ Thus, an inco2plete theory canBt sol!e so2e of the proble2s fro2 the do2ain of its co2petence$ 9or2ally, according to this definition, an inconsistent theory is co2plete$ 7ndeed, the axio2 *10' fG`/G`<0 says that if a theory allows deri!ing a contradiction, then, in this theory, anything is pro!able, i$e$ it is a co2plete theory$ Rf course, if T would be both consistent and co2plete, then we could call it Sabsolutely perfectS$ )nfortunately, AFdelBs inco2pleteness theore2 says thata all !undamental mathematical theories are either inconsistent or incom$lete, i$e$ none of the2 is Sabsolutely perfectS /see 5endelson V1++=W or #odnieks V1++=W, %ection ,$10$ #9ercise ).+.0. (e-for2ulate the abo!e axio2 syste2 for a manyDsorted $redicate language /or, see <hapter 10$ 5any-%orted 9irst Rrder *ogic, by Hean Aallier$0

).,. ;he <lavor o! Proving Directly

;heorem ).,.)$ V*1, *2, 5#W' U- 6`6 for any for2ula 6$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called re!le9ivity $ro$erty o! im$lication$ The following seQuence of for2ulas represents a proof of the for2ula 6`6'

&C 7tBs the axio2 sche2a L0' /6`//<`60`600`//6`/<`600` /G`/<` 00`//G`<0`/G /10 /6`600 ` 00, with G ^ 6, < ^ <`6, ^ 6$ /20 6`//<`60`60 7tBs the axio2 sche2a L)' G`/<`G0, with G ^ 6, < ^ <`6$ 7t follows fro2 /10 and /20 by .o+$s Ponens$ 7tBs the axio2 sche2a L)' G`/<`G0, with G ^ 6, < ^ <$ 7t follows fro2 /&0 and /-0 by .o+$s Ponens$

/&0 /6`/<`600`/6`60

/-0 6`/<`60

/.0 6`6

6s you can see, the proof is easy to !erify, but it could be hard to build it fro2 scratch$ S1hyS should we take Sthe axio2 * 2 with G ^ 6, < ^ <`6, ^ 6S for /108
&o: could one invent a $roo! like the above one4 Rne of the !ersions could be as follows$ 9irst, letBs try to find an axio2, fro2 which we could get 6`6 as a conseQuence$ Gy trying *1, i$e$ G`/<`G0, and setting G^<^6, we could obtain 6`/6`60, a dead end, perhaps$ %o, letBs try *2, i$e$ /G`/<` 00`//G`<0`/G` 00$ Gy setting G^ ^6 we obtain /6`/<`600`//6`<0`/6`600$ 7t see2s to be a good decision E because the first pre2ise 6`/<`60 is, in fact, *1$ Hence, by applying the 5# rule, we obtain /6`<0`/6`60$ ?ow, how to 2ake 6`< Spro!ableS8 %ince < is, in fact, an arbitrary for2ula, we can replace < by <`6, obtaining /6`/<`600`/6`60$ The pre2ise is here, again, * 1, hence, by applying the 5# rule, we obtain 6`6$ D$@$ $ Gy perfor2ing all our replace2ents at the !ery beginning, we obtain the abo!e proof of the for2ula 6`6$ VGT1, the abo!e two s2art SoperationsS E obtaining 6`6 within *2, and 2aking *1 of 6`<, are applications of the socalled uni!ication, a !ery general and !ery i2portant 2ethod used in intellectual co2puter progra2s, for details, see %ection .$=$W

;heorem ).,.0$ V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`G, G`< U- 6`<, for any for2ulas 6, G, <$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called La: o! .yllogism /by 6ristotle0, or the transitivity $ro$erty o! im$lication$ The following seQuence of for2ulas represents a proof of the for2ula 6`< fro2 the hypotheses 6`G and G`<' /10 6`G Hypothesis$

&+ /20 G`< /6`/G`<00`//6`G0`/6 /&0 `<00 /-0 /G`<0`/6`/G`<00 /.0 6`/G`<0 /,0 /6`G0`/6`<0 /=0 6`< Hypothesis$ 7tBs the axio2 sche2a L0' /G`/<` 00`//G`<0`/G` 00, with G ^ 6, < ^ G, ^ <$ 7tBs the axio2 sche2a L)' G`/<`G0, with G ^ G`<, < ^ 6$ 7t follows fro2 /20 and /-0 by .o+$s Ponens$ 7t follows fro2 /&0 and /.0 by .o+$s Ponens$ 7t follows fro2 /10 and /,0 by .o+$s Ponens$

6ote. Rnly axio2 sche2as *1 and *2 , and inference rule .o+$s Ponens are used for pro!ing the Theore2s 1$-$1 and 1$-$2$ Hence, these theorems :ill remain valid !or any logical system containing L), L0 and Modus Ponens. #9ercise ).,.). Guild seQuences of for2ulas representing the following proofs /only the axio2 sche2as *1 and *2 and .o+$s Ponens are necessary0' a0 V*1, 5#W' 6 U- G`6 /a seQuence of & for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*2, 5#W' 6`G, 6`/G`<0 U- 6`< /a seQuence of . for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`/G`<0 U- G`/6`<0 /a seQuence of + for2ulas E thanks to #a!el 6ndreye! for the idea0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called Premise Permutation La:$ d0 V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`/6`G0 U- 6`G /a seQuence of + for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 ;heorem ).,.+$ V*1-, 5#, AenW 7f 9 is any for2ula, and A is any for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable, then A`9/x0 U- A`x9/x0$ The following seQuence of for2ulas represents a proof of the for2ula A`x9/x0 fro2 the hypothesis A`9/x0' /10 A`9/x0 Hypothesis$

-0 /20 x/A`9/x00 /&0 x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00 /-0 A`x9/x0 7t follows Aenerali:ation$ fro2 /10 by

7tBs the axio2 sche2a L), /A does not contain x as a free !ariable0$ 7t follows fro2 /20 and /&0 by .o+$s Ponens$

#9ercise ).,.0$ Guild seQuences of for2ulas representing the following proofs /9 is any for2ula, and A is a for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable0' a0 V*1., 5#, AenW' 9/x0`A U- x9/x0`A /a seQuence of - for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*&-*., 5#W' A B U- B A /a seQuence of C for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 V*,-*C, 5#W' U- A B 5 B A /a seQuence of . for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 d0 V*1, *+, 5#W' G, fG U- f< /a seQuence of + for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs .0T of the axio2 *10; e0 V*&, *-, *+, 5#W' U- ( A A) /a seQuence of . for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called La: o! 6onD"ontradiction$ f0 V*1, *C, *10, 5#W' U- A B 5 ( A5 B ) /a seQuence of . for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 g0 V*C, *11, 5#W' 6`G, f6`G U- G /a seQuence of = for2ulas0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 #9ercise ).,.+ /for s2art students0$ <ould one build shorter seQuences pro!ing the for2ulas of @xercise 1$-$1 c, d0 and @xercise 1$-$2 b, d08 @!geny Vihro! !erified in 2011 that any proof of the for2ula of @xercise 1$-$1 d0 will be longer than . for2ulas$

)./. Deduction ;heorems

7f, by assu2ing G as a hypothesis, we ha!e pro!ed <, then we ha!e pro!ed that G i2plies <$ This natural way of reasoning is for2ali:ed in the so-called

-1 deduction theorems /introduced by HacQues Herbrand and 6lfred Tarski0'

K. &erbrand. (echerches sur la thiorie de la di2onstration$ #h Thesis, )ni!ersity of #aris, 1+&0 /appro!ed in 6pril 1+2+0$ 5. ;arski. )eber einige funda2entale Gegriffe der 5eta2athe2atik$ S<o2ptes (endus de %iances de la %ociiti des %ciences et des *ettres de Varso!ie, <lasse 777S, 1+&0, Vol$2&, pp$ 22-2+$

1e will pro!e two such theore2s 3 eduction Theore2 1 /for propositional logic0 and eduction Theore2 2 /for predicate logic0$ ;heorem )./.) (Deduction ;heorem ))$ 7f T is a first order theory, and there is a proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, T, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ 7$e$ ha!ing a .o+$s Ponens proof of < fro2 the hypotheses 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G, we can build a .o+$s Ponens proof of G`< fro2 the hypotheses 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n$ 7t appears that, usually, pro!ing of VT, 5#W' $$$ G U- < is easier /technically si2pler0 than pro!ing of VT, 5#W' $$$ U- G`<$ #9ercise )./.) /for s2art students0$ yourself$ o not read the proof below$ Try pro!ing

Proo! /thanks to %ergey "o:lo!ich for the idea, see also "leene V1+,=W, @xercise 10<0$ 1e 2ust define a procedure allowing to con!ert any proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < into a proof of V*1, *2, T, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n UG`<$ The easy way to do this would be using an induction by the nu2ber of for2ulas in the proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <$ Gut we will use a 2ore elegant idea$ 6ny proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < is a seQuence of for2ulas 91, 92, $$$92$ 1e will replace each for2ula 9i by & or . for2ulas, the last of these being the for2ula G`9i, retaining our seQuence as a !alid proof$ 1e 2ust consider the following cases' 10 9 is an axio2 /i$e$ an instance of a logical axio2 or a non-logical axio2 of T0$ (eplace 9 by & for2ulas' 9, 9`/G`90, G`9$ The second for2ula is an instance of *1, the third for2ula is obtained fro2 the first two ones by using .o+$s Ponens$

-2 20 9 is one of the hypotheses 6 i$ (eplace 9 by & for2ulas' 9, 9`/G`90, G`9$ The second for2ula is an instance of * 1, the third for2ula is obtained fro2 the first two ones by using .o+$s Ponens$ &0 9 is G$ (eplace 9 by the . for2ulas fro2 the proof of Theore2 1$-$1, where can be any for2ula' /G`// `G0`G00`//G`/ `G00`/G`G00 /an instance of *20, G`// `G0`G0 /an instance of *10, G`/ `G00`/G`G0 /by .o+$s Ponens0, G`/ `G0 /an instance of *10, G`G /by .o+$s Ponens0$ The last for2ula is here, of course, G`9$ -0 9 is deri!ed fro2 so2e pre!ious for2ulas 9 i and 9> by .o+$s Ponens, 9i ha!ing the for2 9>`9 /i$e$ 9>`9 and 9> yield 9 by .o+$s Ponens0$ Then, the for2ulas G`9>, G`/9>`90 are already present in the con!erted proof /they appeared during the replace2ent operations applied to the for2ulas 9> and 9>`90$ %o, replace 9 by & for2ulas' /G`/9>`900`//G`9>0`/G`900 /an instance of *20, /G`9>0`/G`90 /by .o+$s Ponens0, G`9 /by .o+$s Ponens0$ Thus, what we ha!e now, is a correct proof in V* 1, *2, 5#W that is using the hypotheses 61, 62, $$$, 6n, but not G; The last for2ula of this proof is G`< /because < is the last for2ula of our initial proof of V* 1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <0$ Thus, we ha!e a proof of V*1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ D$@$ $ The abo!e proof of eduction Theore2 1 includes, in fact, an algorithm allowing to obtain a proof of V*1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`< fro2 a gi!en proof of V*1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <$ The resulting proof is longer than the gi!en one' if the gi!en proof consists of m for2ulas, then the resulting proof consists of Dm or &m\2 for2ulas0$

-& "orollaries )./.). 10 7f there is a proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G1, G2, $$$, Gk U- <, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, T, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- /G1`/G2`/$$$`/Gk`<0$$$000$ 20 7f T includes /or pro!es0 sche2as * 1, *2, then, if there is a proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < then there is a proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`< $ 7n particular, if VT, 5# W' G U- <, then VT, 5#W' U- G`<$ 6nd, if VT, 5# W' G, <U- , then VT, 5#W' U- G`/<` 0$ Proo!. 10 Gy iterating eduction Theore2 1$ 20 7f T is a theory which includes or pro!es the sche2as *1, *2, then V*1, *2, T, 5#W is eQui!alent to VT, 5#W$ D$@$ $ #9ercise )./.0 /for s2art students0$ 7n earlier !ersions of logical axio2s, instead of the axio2 *2, in so2e texts, the following & axio2s were in use' *21' /6`/6`G00`/6`G0, *22' /6`/G`<00`/G`/6`<00 /i$e$ the #re2ise #er2utation *aw0, *2&' /6`G0`//G`<0`/6`<00 /the *aw of %yllogis2, or the transiti!ity property of i2plication0$ Verify that both !ersions, i$e$ V*1, *2, 5#W and V*1, *21, *2&, *2&, 5#W are eQui!alent$ /Hint' a0 %ee %ection 2$1 to !erify that V*1, *2, 5#W pro!es *21, *2&, *2&$ b0 Verify that V*1, *21, *2&, *2&, 5#W pro!es *2 either directly, or by pro!ing the eduction Theore2 1 for V*1, *21, *2&, *2&, 5#W$0 #9ercise )./.+ /thanks to %ergey "o:lo!ich for the idea0$ a0 #ro!e the following Sgenerali:ationS of the .o+$s Ponens rule' V*1, *2, 5#W' / 1`/ 2`$$$/ / 1`/ 2`$$$/ k`<0$$$0$
k`G0$$$0,

1`/ 2`$$$/ k`/G`<00$$$0

U$$$,

b0 #ro!e the following Sgenerali:ationS of the axio2 *1- /for2ulas k do not contain x as a free !ariable0' V*1, *2, *1-, 5#W' U- x/ / k`x9/x00$$$0$
1`/ 2`$$$/ k`9/x00$$$0

1,

2,

` /

1`/ 2`$$$

-#9ercise )./., /for s2art students0$ 7n!estigate the si:e /the nu2ber of for2ulas0 of the proof of V*1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, U- G`< as a function f/20 of the si:e 2 of the proof of V* 1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <$ Kou 2ay wish to report your result$ 1e will publish your report on the web as an appendix to this book$ The current record holder is %ergey "o:lo!ich, 200-' f/20 c &2\2$ 72pro!e this result, or pro!e that it is the best one possible$ #9ercise )././ /for s2art students0$ 7n!estigate the si:e /the nu2ber of instances of atomic for2ulas0 of the proof of V* 1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, UG`< as a function g/20 of the si:e 2 of the proof of V* 1, *2, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <$ Kou 2ay wish to report your result$ 1e will publish your report on the web as an appendix to this book$ The current record holder is "irils %olo!>o!s, 200C' g/2, n0 c =2\2-nE2, where n is the nu2ber of instances of ato2ic for2ulas in the for2ula G$ 72pro!e this result, or pro!e that it is the best one possible$ 3arning8 Generalization involved... ?ow, what, if in the proof of 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < not only .o+$s Ponens, yet also Genera%i3ation is used8 1e 2ust be careful, because, trying Ssi2plyS to apply eduction Theore2 1, we can obtain cra:y results$ 7ndeed, ha!ing a for2ula 9/x0, by Genera%i3ation, we obtain the for2ula x9/x0$ Thus, 9/x0 U- x9/x0$ 7f eduction Theore2 1 could be extended to Aen without any restrictions, then we could conclude that U- 9/x0`x9/x0$ 7f this is true for any x, it is true also for x^2, hence, U9/20`x9/x0$ Thus, if the nu2ber 2 is pri2e, then all nu2bers are pri2e8 %o, let us try deri!ing a restricted for2ulation of the eduction Theore2 E it see2s, we should $rohibit a$$lication o! 7en to the !ree variables o! ' E the hypothesis Sto be 2o!edS$ ;heorem )./.0 (Deduction ;heorem 0)$ 7f T is a first order theory, and there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, where Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ Proo!. 1e 2ust extend the abo!e proof of the eduction Theore2 1 that consisted of - cases$ 9irst, we 2ust extend the first case' 1B0 9 is an axio2 /i$e$ an instance of a logical axio2 or a non-logical axio2 of T0$ (eplace 9 by & for2ulas' 9, 9`/G`90, G`9$ The second for2ula is an

-. instance of *1, the third for2ula is obtained fro2 the first two ones by using .o+$s Ponens$ 6nd we 2ust add the following case' .0 9 is deri!ed fro2 so2e pre!ious for2ula 9 i by Genera%i3ation, thus, 9 ha!ing the for2 x9i, where x is not free in the for2ula G$ (eplace 9 by the following & for2ulas' x/G`9i0`/G`x9i0, x/G`9i0, G`x9i$ %ince x is not free in G, the first for2ula is an instance of * 1-$ The second for2ula is obtained by Genera%i3ation fro2 the for2ula G`9i that is already present in the con!erted proof /it appeared during the replace2ent operation applied to the for2ula 9i0$ The third for2ula is obtained fro2 the first two ones by using .o+$s Ponens$ Thus, what we ha!e now, is a correct proof in V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW that is using the hypotheses 61, 62, $$$, 6n, but not G; The last for2ula of this proof is G`< /because < is the last for2ula our initial proof of V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <0$ Thus, we ha!e a proof of V* 1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ D$@$ $ "orollary )./.0$ 10 7f there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G1, G2, $$$, Gk U- <, where Genera%i3ation is not applied to the the free !ariables of the for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gk, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- /G1`/G2`/$$$`/Gk`<0$$$000$ 20 7f G is a closed for2ula, and there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ &0 7f T is a theory whose axio2s include sche2as *1, *2, *1-, then, if there is a proof of

-, VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, where Genera%i3ation is not applied to the the free !ariables of G, then there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ 7n particular, if VT, 5#, AenW' G U- <, where Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G, then VT, 5#, AenW' U- G`<$ Proo!. %i2ilar to the proof of the abo!e <orollaries of eduction Theore2 1$ 3arning8 Previously $roved theorems involved... 7n the real 2athe2atical practice, when pro!ing VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U<, we 2ay wish to apply so2e theore2 D that we ha!e already pro!ed earlier$ 7f we would si2ply insert D into our for2al proof, then, for2ally, this would yield only that VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, D U- <$ To obtain the desired for2al proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- <, we 2ust insert not only D itself, but the entire $roo! of D; %till, with the eduction Theore2 2 this 2ay be proble2atic$ 7f we are pro!ing VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < with the intention to apply eduction Theore2 2 /to obtain VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<0, then, before inserting the proof of D, we 2ust ensure that, in this proof, Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G$ Gut, of course, the original proof of D could contain such Genera%i3ations; To sol!e this proble2, we could try, in the proof of D, before inserting it, rena2e si2ultaneously all the !ariables to which Genera%i3ation is applied and which are free !ariables in G$ Gut this si2ultaneous rena2ing 2ay affect the bound !ariables of D, and thus E destroy the intended use of D$ The proble2 is sol!ed co2pletely by the following extension of the eduction Theore2 2' ;heorem )./.+ (Deduction ;heorem 05)$ 7f there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, where, a!ter ' a$$ears in the $roo!, Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G, then there is a proof of V*1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ 7ndeed, ha!ing such a theore2, we obtain the necessary "orollary )./.+. 7f there is a proof of

-= VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G, D U- <, where, after G appears in the proof, Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G, and there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- D, then there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ Proo! o! the "orollary. 7n the proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G, D U- <, first, 2o!e all the hypotheses 61, 62, $$$, 6n to the beginning$ Then, i22ediately after the2, insert the proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U- D$ ?ow we ha!e a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, where, after G appears in the proof, Genera%i3ation is not applied to the free !ariables of G$ Gy eduction Theore2 26, then there is a proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ D$@$ $ Proo! o! the Deduction ;heorem 05. *et us 2odify the abo!e proof of the eduction Theore2 2$ 1e 2ust define a procedure allowing to con!ert any allowed proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < into a proof of V* 1, *2, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ )nlike the abo!e proof, let us lea!e unchanged all the for2ulas of the proof of VT, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- < be!ore ' a$$ears in the $roo!$ 6fter this, starting :ith ', we will replace each for2ula 9 by & or . for2ulas, one of the2 being the for2ula G`9$ 1e 2ust consider the following cases' 10, 20, &0 E as in the proof of the eduction Theore2 1$ -0 9 is deri!ed fro2 so2e pre!ious for2ulas 9 i and 9> by .o+$s Ponens, 9i ha!ing the for2 9>`9 /i$e$ 9>`9 and 9> yield 9 by .o+$s Ponens0$ Then, subcases are possible$ -a0 9> and 9>`9 both appear before G, i$e$ they re2ain unchanged in the con!erted proof$ *et us replace 9 by the following & for2ulas' 9, 9`/G`90, G`9$ The second for2ula is an instance of * 1, the third for2ula is obtained by using .o+$s Ponens fro2 the first two ones$ -b0 9> appears before G, and 9>`9 is G or appears after G$ Then, the for2ulas

-C 9> and G`/9>`90 are already present in the con!erted proof$ *et us replace 9 by the following . for2ulas' /G`/9>`900`//G`9>0`/G`900 /an instance of *20, /G`9>0`/G`90 /by .o+$s Ponens0, 9>`/G`9>0 /an instance of *10, G`9> /by .o+$s Ponens0, G`9 /by .o+$s Ponens0$ -c0 9> is G or appears after G, and 9>`9 appears before G$ Then, the for2ulas G`9> and 9>`9 are already present in the con!erted proof$ *et us replace 9 by the following . for2ulas fro2 the proof of Theore2 1$-$2' /G`/9>`900`//G`9>0`/G`900 /an instance of *20, /9>`90`/G`/9>`900 /an instance of *10, G`/9>`90 /by .o+$s Ponens0, /G`9>0`/G`90 /by .o+$s Ponens0, G`9 /by .o+$s Ponens0$ -d0 9> and 9>`9 both are G or appear after G$ Then, the for2ulas G`9 > and G`/9>`90 are already present in the con!erted proof /they appeared during the replace2ent operations applied to the for2ulas 9 > and 9>`90$ *et us replace 9 by the following & for2ulas' /G`/9>`900`//G`9>0`/G`900 /an instance of *20, /G`9>0`/G`90 /by .o+$s Ponens0, G`9 /by .o+$s Ponens0$ .0 9 is deri!ed fro2 so2e pre!ious for2ula 9i by Genera%i3ation, thus, 9 is in the for2 x9i$ Then, 2 subcases are possible$ .a0 9i appears before G$ Then x is not free in G$ *et us replace 9 by the following & for2ulas' 9 /by Genera%i3ation, x is not free in G0, 9`/G`90 /an instance of *10, G`9

-+ .b0 9i is G or appears after G$ Then x is not free in G, and the for2ula G`9 i that is already present in the con!erted proof /it appeared during the replace2ent operation applied to the for2ula 9 i0$ *et us replace 9 by the following & for2ulas' x/G`9i0 /by Genera%i3ation, x is not free in G0, x/G`9i0`/G`x9i0 /an instance of *1-, since x is not free in G0, G`x9i /by .o+$s Ponens0$ Thus, what we ha!e now, is a correct proof in V* 1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW that is using the hypotheses 61, 62, $$$, 6n, but not G; The last for2ula of this proof is G`< /because < is the last for2ula our initial proof of VT, 5#, AenW' 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <0$ Thus, we ha!e a proof of V* 1, *2, *1-, T, 5#, AenW' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<$ D$@$ $ #9ercise )./.1 /for s2art students0$ 7n so2e other textbooks, a so2ewhat different syste2 of logical axio2s is used' instead of the axio2s * 1-, *1. and the Genera%i3ation rule the following two rules of inference are used' A`9/x0 U- A`x9/x0 /-7ntroduction04 9/x0`A U- x9/x0`A /-@li2ination0$ Rf course, here, A is a for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable$ Verify that both syste2s are eQui!alent in all of their !ersions /2ini2al, constructi!e, and classical0$

.0

0. Pro$ositional Logic
Aeorge Goole /1C1.-1C,-0' S7n 1C.- he published An #n'estigation into the La-s of Tho$ght, on Bhich are fo$n+e+ the .athematica% Theories of Logic an+ Probabi%ities( Goole approached logic in a new way reducing it to a si2ple algebra, incorporating logic into 2athe2atics$ He pointed out the analogy between algebraic sy2bols and those that represent logical for2s$ 7t began the algebra of logic called Goolean algebra which now finds application in co2puter construction, switching circuits etc$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ %ee also' 7.'oole$ The <alculus of *ogic$ The Cambri+ge an+ ,$b%in .athematica% /o$rna% , !ol$ & /1C-C0 /a!ailable online at http'PPwww$2aths$tcd$iePpubPHist5athP#eoplePGooleP<alc*ogicP, published by a!id ($ 1ilkins0$

0.). Proving <ormulas "ontaining Im$lication only

*et us return to the @xercise 1$-$1/d0, where you produced a seQuence of + for2ulas pro!ing the following' d0 V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`/6`G0 U- 6`G$ id you try the next step 3 pro!ing of dB0 V*1, *2, 5#W' U- /6`/6`G00`/6`G08 9or pro!ing directly 3 al2ost an i2possible task; ?ow, ha!ing deduction theore2s, we can si2plify the task of pro!ing d0, and 2ake the task of pro!ing dB0 feasible$ More $recisely E the task o! $roving that d) and dJ) are $rovable. 7ndeed, /10 6`/6`G0 /20 6 /&0 6`G /-0 G Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10, /20$ Gy 5#, fro2 /20, /&0$ eduction

Thus, we ha!e established that 6`/6`G0, 6 U- G$ ?ow, by Theore2 1, V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`/6`G0 U- 6`G$

.1 6nd let us apply this theore2 once 2ore, V*1, *2, 5#W' U- /6`/6`G00`/6`G0$ 6ote. 7n fact, we pro!ed here only 6`/6`G0, 6 U- G, but :e did not $rove d) and dJ), i.e. :e did not $roduce the corres$onding se@uences o! !ormulas. 3e Bust $roved that these se@uences do e9ist8 To produce the2 really, we 2ust apply the algorith2 described in the proof of eduction Theore2 1$ #9ercise 0.).). 72agine applying the algorith2 described in the proof of eduction Theore2 1' a0 to the abo!e - for2ula seQuence 3 producing a seQuence of -- for2ulas pro!ing V*1, *2, 5#W' U- /6`/6`G00`/6`G04 b0 to your + for2ula proof of /d0 3 producing a seQuence of 2+ for2ulas pro!ing the sa2e$

3arning8 6lways be careful when selecting hypotheses$ 9or

exa2ple, to pro!e the strange for2ula /the so-called #eirceBs *aw0 U//6`G0`60`6 /it is pro!able in the classical logic, not in the constructi!e logic;0, you can try pro!ing that /6`G0`6 U- 6, but not 6`G, 6 U- 6$ 1hy8 Gecause, by eduction Theore2 1, fro2 6`G, 6 U- 6 it follows that 6`G U6`6 and U- /6`G0`/6`60, or 6 U- /6`G0`6 and U- 6`//6`G0`60$ 1here do you see U- //6`G0`60`6 here8 #9ercise 0.).0. #ro!e the following V*1, *2, 5#W' a0 U- //6`G0`/6`<00`/6`/G`<00$ 1hat does this for2ula 2ean8 b0 U- /6`G0`//G`<0`/6`<00$ 1hat does this for2ula 2ean8 7tBs another !ersion of the so-called La: o! .yllogism /by 6ristotle0, or the transitivity $ro$erty o! im$lication$ @xplain the difference between this for2ula and Theore2 1$-$2' 6`G, G`< U- 6`<$ c0 U- /6`/G`<00`/G`/6`<00$ 1hat does this for2ula 2ean8 7tBs another !ersion of the so-called Premise Permutation La:. @xplain the difference between this for2ula and @xercise 1$-$1/c0' 6`/G`<0 U- G`/6`<0$

0.0. Proving <ormulas "ontaining "onBunction

;heorem 0.0.)$ a0 V*., 5#W 6, G U- A B $ b0 V*&, *-, 5#W' A B U- 6, A B U- G$ *et us pro!e /a0$

.2 /10 6 /20 G /&0 /-0 /.0 A 5 ( B 5 A B )

B 5 A B A B

Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L/' B 5 ( C 5 BC ) with G ^ 6, < ^ G$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /&0$ Gy 5#, fro2 /20 and /-0$

?ow, let us pro!e /b0$ /10 /20 /&0 6 Thus, /10 /20 /&0 G Thus, A B U- G$ Theore2 2$2$1 allows easy pro!ing of e@uivalences$ *et us recall that Ga< is defined as a shortcut for ( B 5 C )(C 5 B ) $ Rf course, we will call G and < eQui!alent for2ulas, if and only if U- Ga<$ 9or exa2ple, by Theore2 1$-$1, V*1, *2, 5#W U- 6`6, hence, V*1, *2, *., 5#W U- ( A 5 A )( A5 A) , i$e$ V*1, *2, *., 5#W U- 6a6$ Rf course, /a0 of the @xercise 2$1$2 is the re!erse for2ula of the axio2 *2$ Hence, by Theore2 2$2$1' V*1, *2, *., 5#W U- /6`/G`<00 a //6`G0`/6`<00$ Gy /c0 of the @xercise 2$1$2, and Theore2 2$2$1' V*1, *2, *., 5#W U- /6`/G`<00a/G`/6`<00 ?ow, let us pro!e another for2 of the *aw of %yllogis2, or Theore2 1$-$2 A B U- 6$ A B
A B 5 B A B

Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L+' BC 5 B with G ^ 6, < ^ G$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /20$

A B 5 A

Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L,' BC 5 C with G ^ 6, < ^ G$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /20$

.& V*1, *2, 5#W' 6`G, G`< U- 6`<' V*1-*-, 5#W U- ( A 5 B )( B 5C ) 5 ( A5 C ) $ /10 /20 /&0 ( A 5 B )( B 5C ) ( A 5 B )( B 5C ) 5 ( A5 B ) ( A 5 B )( B 5C ) 5 ( B 5 C ) Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L+' BC 5 B with G ^ 6`G, < ^ G`<$ 6xio2 L,' BC 5 C with G ^ 6`G, < ^ G`<$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /20$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /&0$ Gy by the transiti!ity property of i2plication /Theore2 1$-$20$

/-0 6`G /.0 G`< /,0 6`<

Thus, we ha!e established that V*1-*-, 5#W' ( A 5 B )( B 5C ) U- 6`<$ Gy eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*-, 5#W U- (( A5 B )( B 5 C )) 5 ( A5 C ) $ #9ercise 0.0.). #ro!e the following V*1- *., 5#W' a0 6`G, 6`< U- A 5 BC $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- ( A 5 B )( A 5C ) 5 ( A 5 BC ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 A 5 BC U- 6`G$ 1hat does it 2ean8 d0 A 5 BC U- 6`<$ 1hat does it 2ean8 e0 U- ( A 5 BC ) 5 ( A5 B )( A 5C ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 Hence, V*1- *., 5#W' U- ( A 5 BC ) 6 ( A5 B )( A 5C ) $ #9ercise 0.0.0. #ro!e the following, V*1- *., 5#W' a0 U- A B 6 B A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 That conBunction is commutative$ b0 U- A( B C ) 6 ( A B )C $ 1hat does it 2ean8 That conBunction is associative$ c0 U- A A6 A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 That conBunction is idem$otent$ #9ercise 0.0.+. #ro!e the following, V*1- *., 5#W' a0 U- ( A 5 ( B 5 C )) 6 ( A B 5 C ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8

.b0 U- ( A 5 B ) 5 ( AC 5 B C ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 The con!erse for2ula ( A C 5 B C ) 5 ( A5 B ) cannot be true$ @xplain, why$ c0 6 U- B 6 B A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 #9ercise 0.0.,. *et us recall that the eQui!alence connecti!e 6aG is defined as a shortcut for ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) $ #ro!e the following properties of this connecti!e V*1- *., 5#W' /a0 U- 6a6 /reflexi!ity0, /b0 U- /6aG0`/Ga60 /sy22etricity0, /c0 U- ( A 6 B )( B 6C ) 5 ( A6 C ) /transiti!ity0$

0.+. Proving <ormulas "ontaining DisBunction

#9ercise 0.+.). #ro!e the following V*1, *2, *,-*C, 5#W' a0 V*C, 5#W' 6`<, G`< U- A B 5C $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V *., *,-*C, 5#W' U- A B 6 B A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 That disBunction is commutative$ c0 V*1, *2, *., *,-*C, 5#W' U- A A 6 A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 That disBunction is idem$otent$ ;heorem 0.+.I. V*1, *2, *C, 5#W' 7f there is a proof of 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- , and a proof of 61, 62, $$$, 6n, < U- , then there is a proof of A1 , A2 , $$$ , An , BC U- $ #9ercise 0.+.0. #ro!e Theore2 2$&$0$ #ro!ing that disBunction is associative reQuires so2e sophistication /s2art students' do not read the proof below, try pro!ing yourself0' V*1, *2, *., *,-*C, 5#W' U- A( B C ) 6 ( A B )C $ 9irst, i2agine, we are trying to obtain, for exa2ple, A( B C ) 5 ( A B )C , fro2 the axio2 *C' ( A 5 ( A B )C ) 5 (( B C 5 ( A B )C ) 5 ( A( BC ) 5 ( A B )C )) 7t see2s, the second pre2ise BC 5 ( A B )C also could be obtained

.. fro2 *C' ( B 5 ( A B )C ) 5 ((C 5 ( A B )C ) 5 ( BC 5 ( A B )C )) $ Thus, the ` part of the task will be sol!ed, if we could pro!e that U/10 A 5 A( BC ) , UA 5 A( BC ) ?ow, let us pro!e that U/20 /&0 B 5 A( B C ) $
B 5 BC

B 5 A( B C ) , U- C 5 A( BC ) $ 6xio2 L1' B 5 BC with G ^ 6, < ^ B C $

6xio2 L1$ 6xio2 L2' C 5 BC with G ^ 6, < ^ G!<$ 9ro2 /20 and /&0, by the transiti!ity property of i2plication /Theore2 1$-$20$

BC 5 A( B C )

/-0

B 5 A( B C ) ?ow, let us pro!e that U- C 5 A( BC ) $

/.0 /,0

C 5 BC

6xio2 L2$ 6xio2 L2' C 5 BC with G ^ 6, < ^ G!<$ 9ro2 /.0 and /,0, by the transiti!ity property of i2plication /Theore2 1$-$20$

BC 5 A( B C )

/=0

C 5 A( BC )

#9ercise 0.+.+. a0 #ro!e the con!erse' V*1, *2, *,-*C, 5#W' U( A B )C 5 A( BC ) $ b0 #ro!e /use eduction Theore2 10 that V* 1, *2, *,-*C, 5#W' U( A 5 B ) 5 ( AC 5 B C ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 The con!erse for2ula ( A C 5 B C ) 5 ( A 5 B) cannot be true$ @xplain, why$ c0 #ro!e that V*1, *2, *,-*C, 5#W' U- 6`G, <` does it 2ean8 U- AC 5 B , $ 1hat

., The following theore2 corresponds to the well-known distributive $ro$erty of /nu2ber0 addition to 2ultiplication' /a\b0c ^ ac\bc$ Rf course, the SdualS distributi!e property /i$e$ 3 of 2ultiplication to addition0 does not hold for nu2bers' ab\c^/a\c0/b\c0 would i2ply ab\c^ab\ac\bc\cc, c^ac\bc\cc, and, if c_b0, then 1^a\b\c$ %till, surprisingly, in logic, ;heorem 0.+.). "onBunction is distributive to disBunction, and disBunction is distributive to conBunction? V*1-*C, 5#W' U- ( A B )C 6 ( A C )( B C ) $ V*1-*C, 5#W' U- ( A B )C 6 ( A C )( B C ) $ 9irst, let us pro!e that U- ( A B )C 5 ( A C )( B C ) $ /10 #ro!e U- A B 5 ( AC )( BC ) /20 #ro!e U- C 5 ( AC )( B C ) /&0 U- ( A B)C 5 ( AC )( BC ) #9ercise 0.+.,. a0 #ro!e /10 and /20$ b0 o not read the following proof$ Try pro!ing yourself$ ?ow, let us pro!e the con!erse' U- ( A C )( B C ) 5 ( A B )C $ 6ote. The proof below starts with < as a hypothesis$ 1hy not with ( A C )( B C ) 8 Gecause, we will use eduction Theore2 1 to pro!e the inter2ediate for2ula /,0 C 5 ( B C 5 ( A B )C ) , not the final result; /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 /C0 < G`< C 5 ( A B)C B 5 ( A B )C BC 5 ( A B )C C 5 ( B C 5 ( A B )C ) ( B 5 A B) 5 ( BC 5 ( A B )C ) A 5 ( B 5 A B ) Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10$ 6xio2 *=$ 9ro2 /20 and /&0$ 9ro2 /-0 and /&0$ 9ro2 /10-/.0, by eduction Theore2 1$ @xercise 2$&$&/b0$ 6xio2 *&$ 9ro2 /10 and /20, by @xercise 2$&$1/a0$

.= /+0 /100 /110 A 5 ( B C 5 ( A B )C ) AC 5 ( BC 5 ( A B )C ) ( A C )( B C ) 5 ( A B )C 9ro2 /C0 and /=0$ 9ro2 /+0 and /,0$ 9ro2 /100, by @xercise 2$2$&/a0$

?ow, we 2ust pro!e that U- ( A B )C 5 ( A C )( B C ) $ /10 #ro!e U/20 #ro!e U/&0 A 5 ( C 5 ( AC )( B C )) B 5 ( C 5 ( AC )( B C ))

#ro!e U( A B)C 5 ( AC )( BC )

#9ercise 0.+./. #ro!e the abo!e /10, /20 and /&0$ 9inally, we 2ust pro!e that U- ( A C )( B C ) 5 ( A B )C $ #9ercise 0.+.1. #ro!e that$

0.,. <ormulas "ontaining 6egation E Minimal Logic

;heorem 0.,.)$ a0 7f V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- <, and V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- f<, then V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- fG$ 1hat does this 2ean8 b0 V*&, *-, *+, 5#W' U- ( A A) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called La: o! 6onD"ontradiction. Proo!. a0 Gy eduction Theore2 1, 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`<, and 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- G`f<$ *et us continue this proof by adding the axio2 L*' /G`<0`//G`f<0`fG0 as the next step$ 6fter this, by applying 5# twice we obtain fG$ D$@$ $ b0 %ee @xercise 1$-$2 /e0$

.C #9ercise 0.,.). a0 /for s2art students0 7n!estigate the si:e /the nu2ber of for2ulas0 of the proof of V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, U- fG as a function f/k, 20 of the si:es k, 2 of the proofs of V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U< and 1, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- f<$ Kou 2ay wish to report your result$ 1e will publish your report on the web as an appendix to this book$ The current record holder is 6iga (o2ane, 200C' f/k, 20 c &/k\20\=$ 72pro!e this result, or pro!e that it is the best possible one$ b0 V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' 6, fG U- f/6`G0$ Rr, V* 1-*-, *+, 5#W' UA B 5 7( A 5 B) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 U- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' /6`f60`f6$ 1hat does it 2ean8 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 7n %ection 2$,, we will use the classical logic V*1-*11, 5#W to pro!e the con!erse for2ula of /c0' 7 ( A 5 B ) 5 A7 B , i$e$ the eQui!alence 7 ( A 5 B ) 6 A7 B $ This for2ula cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic V* 1-*10, 5#W /see %ection 2$C0$ ;heorem 0.,.0. V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/fG`f60$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs the so-called "ontra$osition La:$ 6ote$ The following for2 of Theore2 2$-$2 is called Modus ;ollens' V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`G, fG U- f6$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 7n %ection 2$,, we will classical logic V*1-*11, 5#W to pro!e the con!erse /fG`f60`/6`G0, i$e$ the eQui!alence /6`G0a/fG`f60$ 1e also that these for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic 5#W /see %ection 2$C0$ #9ercise 0.,.0. a0 #ro!e Theore2 2$-$2$ b0Verify that, in our axio2 syste2, the *aw of ?on-<ontradiction and the <ontraposition *aw could be used instead of the axio2 * +$ 5ore precisely' pro!e *+ in the logic V*1-*., *aw of ?on-<ontradiction, <ontraposition *aw, 5#W$ Ge careful' do not use theore2s depending on the axio2 *+$ ;heorem 0.,.+. V*1-*+, 5#W' U- /6`fG0a/G`f60$ 1hat does it 2ean8 9irst we pro!e that U- /6`fG0`/G`f60$ /10 6`fG Hypothesis$ use the for2ula will see V* 1-*10,

.+ /20 G /&0 /6`G0`//6`fG0`f60 /-0 6`G /.0 /6`fG0`f6 /,0 f6 Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L*' /G`<0`//G`f<0`fG0 with G ^ 6, < ^ G$ 9ro2 /20 by 6xio2 *1 and 5#$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0$ 9ro2 /10 and /.0$

Thus, by eduction Theore2 1, U- /6`fG0`/G`f60$ Gy swapping 6 and G we obtain the con!erse for2ula' U- /G`f60`/6`fG0$ D$@$ $ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 3arning8 The /!ery si2ilar to Theore2 2$-$&0 for2ula /f6`G0a/fG`60 can be pro!ed only in the classical logic; ;heorem 0.,.,. V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 1hat does it 2ean8 /10 6 /20 /f6`60`//f6`f60`ff60 /&0 6`/f6`60 /-0 f6`6 /.0 /f6`f60`ff6 /,0 ff6 Hypothesis$ 6xio2 L*$ 6xio2 L)$ 9ro2 /10 and /&0 by 5#$ 9ro2 /20 and /-0 by 5#$ 9ro2 /.0 and Theore2 1$-$1 by 5#$

5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 7n %ection 2$,, we will use the classical logic V*1-*11, 5#W to pro!e the con!erse for2ula U- ff6`6, i$e$ the eQui!alence U- ff6a6 /the so-called Double 6egation La:0$ 1e will see also /%ection 2$C0 that these for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic V*1-*10, 5#W$ %till, in the 2ini2al logic we can pro!e /Grouwer, 1+2&80' ;heorem 0.,./. V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- fff6af6$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7ndeed, by Theore2 2$-$-, U- f6`fff6$ Gy the <ontraposition *aw /Theore2 2$-$20, U- /6`ff60`/fff6`f60$ Hence, by Theore2 2$-$-, Ufff6`f6$ D$@$ $

,0 Theore2 2$-$. /and so2e of the following for2ulas in this and in the next section containing double negations0 2ay see2 uninteresting to people belie!ing unconditionally in the eQui!alence ff6a6$ %till, it see2s interesting /at least 3 for a 2athe2atician0 to obtain a general characteri:ation of logical for2ulas that do not depend on the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle$ 7n %ection 2$= we will use these for2ulas to pro!e the elegant and non-tri!ial Ali!enkoBs theore2' a0 6 is pro!able in the classical propositional logic /i$e$ in V*1-*11, 5#W0, if and only if ff6 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic /i$e$ in V*1-*10, 5#W0, b0 f6 is pro!able in the classical propositional logic, if and only if f6 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic$ ;heorem 0.,.1. a0 V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- /f6`60`ff6$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*1, *2, *,, *=, *+, 5#W' U- ff/6!f60$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7n this weak for2, the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle can be Spro!ed constructi!elyS$ The for2ula 77 ( A7 A) can be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, but A7 A canBt 3 as we will see in %ection 2$C$ #9ercise 0.,.+. #ro!e /a0 and /b0 of Theore2 2$-$,$ The axio2 *11 canBt be used in these proofs; /Hint for /b0' deri!e a contradiction fro2 f/6!f60$0 ;heorem 0.,.2. V*1-*+, 5#W' a0 U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- ff/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 U- /6`/G`<00`/ff6`/ffG`ff<00$ 1hat does it 2ean8 d0 ff/6`G0, ff/G`<0 U- ff/6`<0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 e0 ff6, ff/6`G0 U- ffG$ 1hat does it 2ean8 The con!erse of /a0' /ff6`ffG0`/6`G0 cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ To pro!e /a0, we 2ust si2ply apply twice the <ontraposition *aw' /6`G0`/fG`f60`/ff6`ffG0$ 6nd, of course, /e0 is an easy conseQuence of /b0$ ?ow, let us pro!e /b0$ /10 /20 ff/6`G0 ff6 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

,1 9ro2 /a0, by transposing 6`G and ff6, by the #re2ise #er2utation *aw$ 9ro2 /20 and /&0$ Gy the <ontraposition *aw$ 9ro2 /-0 and /.0$ Gy the <ontraposition *aw$ 9ro2 /,0 and /=0$ 9ro2 /10 and /C0$ Gy Theore2 2$-$.$ 9ro2 /+0 and /100$

/&0

ff6`//6`G0`ffG0

/-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 /C0 /+0

/6`G0`ffG //6`G0`ffG0`/fffG`f/6`G00 fffG`f/6`G0 /fffG`f/6`G00`/ff/6`G0`ffffG0 ff/6`G0`ffffG ffffG

/100 ffffG`ffG /110 ffG *et us pro!e /c0$ /10 6`/G`<0 /20 ff6 /&0 ffG /-0 ff6`ff/G`<0 /.0 ff/G`<0 /,0 ffG`ff< /=0 ff< Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

Thus, by eduction Theore2 1, U- ff/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$

9ro2 /10, by /a0$ 9ro2 /20 and /-0$ 9ro2 /.0, by /b0$ 9ro2 /&0 and /,0$

Thus, by eduction Theore2 1, U- /6`/G`<00`/ff6`/ffG`ff<00$ ?ow we can pro!e /d0$ 9irst, let us take /c0 with 6 ^ 6`G, G ^ G`<, < ^ 6`<' /10U- //6`G0`//G`<0`/6`<000`/ff/6`G0`/ff/G`<0`ff/6`<000$

,2 /20 U- /6`G0`//G`<0`/6`<0 /&0 ff/6`G0 /-0 ff/G`<0 /.0 ff/6`<0 Gy transiti!ity of i2plication and eduction Theore2 1$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, /&0 and /-0$

;heorem 0.,.G. V*1-*+, 5#W' a0 U- 77 ( A B ) 6 ( 77 A77 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- 77 A77 B 5 77 ( A B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The con!erse of /b0' 77 ( A B ) 5 77 A7 7 B cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7f we si2ply succeed in deri!ing a contradiction fro2 7 ( A B ) , then, perhaps, we do not ha!e a 2ethod allowing to decide, which part of 77 A77 B is true 3 ff6, or ffG8 #9ercise 0.,.,$ #ro!e Theore2 2$-$C$ /Hint' use the result of @xercise 2$2$&/a0, if needed$0 ;heorem 0.,.*. V*1, *2, *+, 5#W U- f6`/6`fG0 /co2pare with @xercise 1$-$2/d00$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7tBs a weak for2 of the Scra:yS axio2 L)I' f6`/6`G0$ This axio2 says' S<ontradiction i2plies anythingS$ 7n the 2ini2al logic we can pro!e .0T of *10' S<ontradiction i2plies that all is wrongS$ Rf course, this .0T-pro!ability of *10 decreases the significance of the 2ini2al logic accordingly$ Proo!$ %ee @xercise 2$-$.$ ;heorem 0.,.)I. V*1-*+, 5#W' a0 U- 7 A7 B 5 7 ( A B ) $ 7tBs a hal! o! the so-called <irst de Morgan La:$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- 7 ( A B ) 6 7 A7 B $ 7tBs the so-called .econd de Morgan La:$ 1hat does it 2ean8 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The second half of /a0 3 the con!erse i2plication, i$e$ the eQui!alence 7 ( A B ) 6 7 A7 B can be pro!ed in the classical logic, yet not in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$
6ugustus de 5organ /1C0,-1C=10' SHe recognised the purely sy2bolic nature of algebra and he was aware of the existence of algebras other than ordinary algebra$ He introduced de 5organBs laws and his greatest contribution is as a refor2er of 2athe2atical logic$S

,&
/according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$

)se <ontraposition *aw to pro!e /a0 and /b`0 in @xercise 2$-$.$ *et us pro!e /bj0$ /00
7 A 7 B

Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /00, by 6xio2 *&$ 9ro2 /00, by 6xio2 *-$ 9ro2 /10, by Theore2 2$-$+' f6`/6`f<0$ < is any for2ula$ 9ro2 /20, by Theore2 2$-$+' fG`/G`f<0$ < is any for2ula$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0, by 6xio2 *C' ( A 5 7C ) 5 (( B 5 7C ) 5 ( A B 5 7C )) $ (epeat /&0-/.0 with ff< instead of f<$ 9ro2 /.0 and /,0, by 6xio2 *+' ( A B 57 C )5 (( A B 5 77C ) 57 ( A B ))

/10 f6 /20 fG /&0 6`f< /-0 G`f< /.0 /,0 /=0 A B 57 C A B 57 7C 7 ( A B )

Thus, by V*1, *2W eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*+, 5#W U- 7 A7 B 5 7 ( A B ) $ #9ercise 0.,./. #ro!e' a0 Theore2 2$-$+$ b0 /a0 and /b`0 of Theore2 2$-$10$ /Hint' use <ontraposition *aw0$ c0 V*1-*+, 5#W' U- ( A 5 B ) 5 7 ( A7 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 <o2pare with @xercise 2$-$1$ d0 V*1-*C, 5#W' U- A B 5 (( A 5 B ) 5 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The con!erse i2plication of /a0, 7 ( A7 B ) 5 ( A 5 B) cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$ %till, we will pro!e this for2ula in the classical logic$ The con!erse of /b0' (( A5 B ) 5 B ) 5 A B cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$ %till, we will pro!e this for2ula in the classical logic$

,-

0./. <ormulas "ontaining 6egation E "onstructive Logic

7n this book, constructive logic is used as a synony2 of intuitionistic logic; <onstructi!e logic includes the Scra:yS axio2 L)I' fG`/G`<0, but re>ects the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle L))' G!fG as a general logical principle$ ;heorem 0./.). a0 V*10, 5#W' 6, f6 U- G$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*1, *2, *C, *10, 5#W' UA B 5 ( 7 A5 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8

c0 V*1, *C, *10, 5#W' U- 7 A B 5 ( A5 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 Rf course, /a0 follows directly fro2 *10, by 5#$ #9ercise 0./.). #ro!e /b0 and /c0 of Theore2 2$.$1$ ?ote' when pro!ing /c0, you cannot use eduction Theore2 1 /because of the 2issing axio2 * 20$ %o, si2ply build a seQuence of . for2ulas representing the proof of /c0$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The con!erse of /b0, i$e$ ( 7 A5 B ) 5 A B cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$ The con!erse of /c0, i$e$ ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B cannot be pro!ed in constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$ %urprisingly, /b0, i$e$ the rule A B , 7 A U- G see2s to be a Quite a SnaturalS logical principle, yet it cannot be pro!ed without the Scra:yS axio2 * 10; 1hy not8 Gecause it i2plies *10; 7ndeed, /10

A B 5 ( 7 A5 B )

Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

/20 f6 /&0 6 /-0 /.0 /,0 G A 5 A B A B

6xio2 *,$ Gy 5#, fro2 /&0 and /-0$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10, /.0 and /20$

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, *,, 5#W' A B 5 ( 7 A5 B ) Uf6`/6`G0$ 7n %ection 2$C we will pro!e that *10 cannot be deri!ed fro2 *1-*+, hence, /b0 also cannot be deri!ed fro2 *1-*+ /i$e$ without *100$

,. ;heorem 0./.0. V*1-*10, 5#W' a0 U- /ff6`ffG0`ff/6`G0$ 7tBs the con!erse of Theore2 2$-$=/b0$ Hence, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff/6`G0a/ff6`ffG0$ b0 U- ff6`/f6`60$ 7tBs the con!erse of Theore2 2$-$,/a0$ Hence, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff6a/f6`60$ c0 U-

A7 A 5 ( 7 7 A 5 A ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8

d0 U- ff/ff6`60$ 1hat does it 2ean8 Rf course, /b0 is an instance of the a9iom L)I. To pro!e /a0, let us pro!e that V* 1-*10, 5#W' ff6`ffG, f/6`G0 U- fG, ffG$ Then, by Theore2 2$-$1, /a0 U- /ff6`ffG0`ff/6`G0$ #9ercise 0./.0$ a0 #ro!e that V*1-*10, 5#W' ff6`ffG, f/6`G0 U- fG, ffG$ b0 #ro!e /c0 and /d0 of Theore2 2$.$2$ #9ercise 0./.+. #ro!e that in V*1-*10, 5#W' a0 6 U- B 6 B7 A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- B( A7 A) 6 B $ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 U- (( A7 A) B)C 6C $ 1hat does it 2ean8

0.1. <ormulas "ontaining 6egation E "lassical Logic

7f you agree to adopt the for2ula B7 B , i$e$ the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle /6xio2 *11 in the list of %ection 1$&0, you can pro!e, first of all, the so called Double 6egation La:' ;heorem 0.1.). V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 ` 6$ Hence, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 a 6$ 7ndeed, by Theore2 2$.$2, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- A7 A 5 ( 7 7 A 5 A ) , hence, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6`6$ D$@$ $ 7n the 2ini2al logic we pro!ed Theore2 2$-$-' V* 1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ Hence, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 a 6$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The for2ula ff6`6 cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, see %ection 2$C$ 1hy8 Gecause it represents a

,, kind of non-constructi!e reasoning$ 7ndeed, i2agine, you wish to pro!e that xG/x0$ 6ssu2e the contrary, fxG/x0, and deri!e a contradiction$ Thus you ha!e pro!ed$$$ the negation of fxG/x0, i$e$ f fxG/x0$ To conclude xG/x0 fro2 f fxG/x0, you need the ouble ?egation *aw$ Hence, by adopting this law as a logical principle, you would allow non-constructi!e existence proofs 3 if you pro!e xG/x0 by assu2ing fxG/x0, and deri!ing a contradiction, then you 2ay not obtain a 2ethod allowing to find a particular x satisfying G/x0$ #9ercise 0.1.). #ro!e that V*C, *11, 5#W' 6`G, f6`G U- G$ Rr, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, *C, *11, 5#W' /6`G0`//f6`G0`G0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 This for2ula cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /see %ection 2$C0$ @xplain, why$ 7n the classical logic, you can pro!e also the full for2 of the "ontra$osition La:? ;heorem 0.1.0. V*1-*11, 5#W' U- /6`G0 a /fG`f60$ 1e pro!ed a half of this *aw in the 2ini2al logic as Theore2 2$-$2' V* 1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/fG`f60$ *et us pro!e the re2aining half' V* 1-*11, 5#W U- /fG`f60 ` /6`G0$ /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 fG`f6 6 ff6`ffG 6`ff6 ffG`G G Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by the first half$ ouble ?egation *aw$ ouble ?egation *aw$ 9ro2 /-0, /&0 ans /.0$

Gy eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*11, 5#W U- /fG`f60 ` /6`G0$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The for2ula /fG`f60 ` /6`G0 cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, see %ection 2$C$ @xplain, why$ #9ercise 0.1.)5. #ro!e that in V*1-*11, 5#W' a0 U- /f6`G0a/fG`60 /co2pare with Theore2 2$-$&0$ b0 U- /6`G0`//f6`fG0`/Ga600$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 These two for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, see %ection 2$C$

,= ;heorem 0.1.+. V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ( A B ) 6 A B $ 7tBs the so-called <irst de Morgan La:. 6 half of this *aw we pro!ed in the 2ini2al logic as Theore2 2$-$10/a0' V* 1*+, 5#W U- 7 A7 B 5 7 ( A B ) $ *et us pro!e the re2aining half' V*1-*11, 5#W U- 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B $ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 This for2ula cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, see %ection 2$C$ @xplain, why$ *et us start by pro!ing 7 ( 7 A7 B ) 5 A B $ /10 /20 /&0 /-0

7 ( 7 A7 B ) 7 ( 7 A' 7 B ) 5 77 A77 B
77 A77 B 5 77 ( A B ) 77 ( A B )

Hypothesis$ Gy the %econd de 5organ *aw -Theore2 2$-$10/b0$ Theore2 2$-$C/a0$ V*1-*+, 5#W; 9ro2 /10, /20 and /&0$

Thus, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*+, 5#W U- 7 ( 7 A7 B ) 57 7 ( A B) $ Gy applying the first half of the <ontraposition *aw /pro!able in the 2ini2al logic0' V*1-*+, 5#W U- 777 ( A B ) 57 7 (7 A7 B ) $ Gy Theore2 2$-$.' V*1-*+, 5#W U- 7 ( A B ) 5 777 ( A B ) , hence, V*1-*+, 5#W U- 7 ( A B ) 5 77 ( 7 A7 B) $ ?ow, by the *aw, V*1-*11, 5#W U- 77 ( 7 A7 B) 5 7 A7 B , hence, V*1-*11, 5#W U- 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B $ D$@$ $ 7n the classical logic, we can express i2plication by negation and dis>unction$ 7ndeed, we already know that V*1-*10, 5#W' U- 7 A B 5 ( A5 B ) /Theore2 2$.$1/c00$ ;heorem 0.1.,. a0 V*1-*C, 5#W' AC U- ( A 5 B ) 5 B C $ Hence, V*1*C, 5#W' A7 A U- ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B $ b0 V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ( A 5 B ) 6 7 A B $ Rf course, /b0 follows fro2 /a0 and Theore2 2$.$1/c0$ *et us pro!e /a0$ /10 6, 6`G U- G /20 6, 6`G UBC Gy 6xio2 *,$ ouble ?egation

,C /&0 6 U- ( A 5 B ) 5 B C /-0 <, 6`G U- < /.0 <, 6`G UB C Gy 6xio2 *=$ Gy eduction Theore2 1$ Gy 6xio2 *C$ Gy eduction Theore2 1$

/,0 < U- ( A 5 B ) 5 B C /=0 6!< U- ( A 5 B ) 5 B C

#9ercise 0.1.0$ #ro!e that in V*1-*11, 5#W' a0 U- B( A7 A) 6 B $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- (( A7 A) B )C 6C $ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 U- (( A5 B ) 5 B ) 5 A B $ 1hat does it 2ean8 Hence, by @xercise 2$-$./d0, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- (( A5 B ) 5 B ) 6 A B $ #9ercise 0.1.+$ #ro!e that in V*1-*11, 5#W' a0 U- ( A 5 B ) 6 7 ( A7 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 U- 7 ( A 5 B ) 6 A7 B $ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 U- A B 6 ( 7 A5 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 d0 U- A B 67 ( A5 7 B) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 e0 /for s2art students0 Try detecting, which parts of these eQui!alences are pro!able' 10 in the 2ini2al logic, 20 in the constructi!e logic$ .trange !ormulas #9ercise 0.1.,$ #ro!e in V*1-*11, 5#W the following strange for2ulas' a0 U- A( A5 B ) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 oes it 2ean anything at all8 b0 U- ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) $ 1hat does it 2ean8 oes it 2ean anything at all8 The 2ost cra:y theore2 of the classical propositional logic8 c0 U- (( A5 B ) 5 A )5 A $ 1hat does it 2ean8 7t is the so-called PeirceJs La: fro2' oes it 2ean anything at all8

". .. Peirce. Rn the algebra of logic' 6 contribution to the philosophy of notation$ American /o$rna% of .athematics, 1CC., !ol$=, pp$1C0-202$

,+

0.2. "onstructive #mbedding. 7livenkoJs ;heorem

*et us recall so2e of the results of pre!ious sections concerning double negations' ;heorem 0.,.,. V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ ;heorem 0.,./. V*1-*+, 5#W' U- fff6af6$ ;heorem 0.,.1(b). V*1-*+, 5#W' U- 77 ( A7 A) $ 7n this weak for2, the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle can be Spro!ed constructi!elyS$ ;heorem 0.,.2. V*1-*+, 5#W' a0 U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ b0 U- ff/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ c0 U- /6`/G`<00`/ff6`/ffG`ff<00$ d0 ff/6`G0, ff/G`<0 U- ff/6`<0$ e0 ff6, ff/6`G0 U- ffG$ ;heorem 0.,.G. V*1-*+, 5#W' a0 U- 77 ( A B ) 6 (77 A77 B ) $ b0 U- 77 A77 B 5 77 ( A B ) $ ;heorem 0./.0. V*1-*10, 5#W' a0 U- /ff6`ffG0`ff/6`G0$ 7tBs the con!erse of Theore2 2$-$=/b0$ d0 U- ff/ff6`60$ ;heorem 0.1.). V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 a 6$ oes it 2ean that for any for2ula 6' if V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 6, then V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff68 /The con!erse is ob!ious' if V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff6, then V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 6 by Theore2 2$,$1$0 72agine, we ha!e a proof of V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 6$ 7t is a seQuence of for2ulas (1, (2, $$$, (n, where (n ^ 6$ 7f this seQuence does not contain instances of the axio2 *11, then it is a proof of V*1-*10, 5#W' U- 6 as well$ Hence, according to Theore2 2$-$-, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff6 7f the seQuence (1, (2, $$$, (n contains so2e instances of *11, i$e$ for2ulas ha!ing the for2 B7 B , then, according to Theore2 2$-$,/b0, we could try replacing each such for2ula by a seQuence pro!ing that V* 1-*+, 5#W' U77 ( B 7 B ) $ 7t appears that each of the for2ulas ff(1, ff(2, $$$, ff(n is

=0 pro!able in V*1-*10, 5#W$ a0 7f (k is an instance of the axio2s * 1-*10, then V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff(k /Theore2 2$-$-0$ b0 7f (k is an instance of the axio2 *11, then V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff(k /Theore2 2$-$,/b00$ c0 ?ow, let us assu2e that i, > _ k, and ( i, (> U- (k directly by 5#, i$e$ (> is (i`(k$ 1e know already that V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff(i and V*1-*10, 5#W' Uff/(i`(k0$ Gy Theore2 2$-$=/b0, V*1-*+, 5#W' Uff/(i`(k0`/ff(i`ff(k0$ Hence, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff(k$ Gecause 6 ^ (n, we ha!e pro!ed the re2arkable Ali!enkoBs theore2 fro2 1+2+'
V.7livenko$ %ur QuelQues points de la logiQue de 5$ Grouwer$ Aca+emie )oya%e +e Be%gi4$e, B$%%etins +e %a c%asse +es sciences, 1+2+, ser$., !ol$1., pp$1C&-1CC$ Valery 7!ano!ich Ali!enko /1C+,-1+-0, see http'PPwww$2ath$ruPhistoryPpeoplePgli!enko, in (ussian0 is best known by the so-called Ali!enko-<antelli theore2 in probability theory$

7livenkoJs ;heorem$ V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 6, if and only if V* 1-*10, 5#W' U- ff6$ Rr' a for2ula 6 is pro!able in the classical propositional logic, if and only if its double negation ff6 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic$ This theore2 pro!ides a kind of a Sconstructi!e e2beddingS for the classical propositional logic' any classically pro!able for2ula can be Spro!edS in the constructi!e logic, if you si2ply put two negations before it$ "orollary$ V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6, if and only if V*1-*10, 5#W' U- f6$ Rr' a Snegati!eS for2ula f6 is pro!able in the classical propositional logic, if and only if it is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic$ 7ndeed, if V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6, then by Ali!enkoBs theore2, V* 1-*10, 5#W' Ufff6, and by Theore2 2$-$., V*1-*10, 5#W' U- f6$ D$@$ $ #9ercise 0.2.). #ro!e the following !ersion of Ali!enkoBs theore2 /see "leene V1+.2W0' a0 7f V*1-*11, 5#W' 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- <, then V*1-*10, 5#W' ff61, ff62, $$$, ff6n U- ff<$ b0 7f V*1-*11, 5#W' f61, f62, $$$, f6n, G1, G2, $$$, Gp U- f<, then V*1-*10, 5#W' f61, f62, $$$, f6n , ffG1, ffG2, $$$, ffGp U- f<$

=1

0.G. 59iom Inde$endence. sing "om$uters in Mathematical Proo!s

7f one of our axio2s *i could be pro!ed by using the re2aining n>; axio2s, then we could si2plify our logical syste2 by dropping * i as an axio2$ 6 striking exa2ple' ;heorem 0.G.)$ The axio2 L*' /6`G0`//6`fG0`f60 can be pro!ed in V*1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W$
This fact was established by 6ugusts "ur2itis /on the web, also' 6$ 6$ "ur2it0' 5. 5. Kurmitis$ Rn independence of a certain axio2 syste2 of the propositional calculus$ Proc( Lat'ian State 2ni'ersity, 1+.C, Vol$ 20, ?&, pp$ 21-2. /in (ussian0$

The following proof of *+ in V*1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W is due to Hanis %edols /1+&+-20110$ 9irst, let us establish that the for2ula /6`f60`f6 can be pro!ed in V* 1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W /in @xercise 2$-$1 we established that V* 1, *2, *+, 5#W' U/6`f60`f60' /10

( A 5 7 A) 5 (( 7 A 5 7 A) 5 ( A7 A) 57 A ) 6xio2 *C$
Hypothesis$ This is pro!able in V*1, *2, 5#W /Theore2 1$-$10$ 6xio2 *11$ 9ro2 /10, /20, /&0 and /-0, by 5#$ Gy eduction Theore2 1 /which is !alid for any logical syste2 containing V*1, *2, 5#W0$

/20 6`f6 /&0 f6`f6 /-0 A' 7 A

/-0 f6

/,0 /6`f60`f6

?ow let us establish that in V*1, *2, *10, 5#W' 6`G, 6`fG U- 6`f6$

=2 /=0 /C0 /+0 /+0 6`G 6`fG 6 G Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /=0, /+0, by 5#$ 9ro2 /C0, /+0, by 5#$ 6xio2 *10$ 9ro2 /+0, /100 and /110 by 5#$ Gy eduction Theore2 1 /which is !alid for any propositional syste2 containing V*1, *2, 5#W0$

/100 fG /110 fG`/G`f60 /120 f6 /1&0 6`G, 6`fG U- 6`f6

9inally, let us 2erge the proofs of /,0 and /1&0, then by 5# we obtain f6, i$e$ V*1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W' 6`G, 6`fG U- f6$ ?ow, by eduction Theore2 1 /which is !alid for any propositional syste2 containing V*1, *2, 5#W0 we obtain the axio2 *+' V*1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W' /6`G0`//6`fG0`f60$ D$@$ $ 1hat should we do after establishing that one of our axio2s is SdependentS8 o you think, we should drop *+ as an axio2 of our logical syste28 9irst, letBs note that :e have $roved L* by using three $roblematic a9ioms' *1, *10, *11$ Gut *+ itself is not proble2atic; %econdly, *+ cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*C, *10, 5#W /see Theore2 2$C$2 below0$ Hence, if we would drop *+, then, instead of a si2ple definition classical logic ^ constructi!e logic \ *11, we would ha!e a 2ore co2plicated one' constructi!e logic ^ classical logic 3 *11 \ *+$ ?ow, the Question of Questions' Is La: o! #9cluded Middle an inde$endent logical $rinci$le4

=& 7$e$, could we pro!e the *aw of @xcluded 5iddle /the axio2 * 11' B7 B 0 by using the other axio2s /i$e$ V*1-*10, 5#W0 as we pro!ed *+ in V*1, *2, *C, *10, *11, 5#W8 7f not, how could we de2onstrate that this is i2possible at all8 How could we de2onstrate that so2e logical principle is inde$endent, i$e$ that it cannot be deri!ed fro2 other principles8 *et us assu2e, we ha!e an algorith2 4 co2puting for each for2ula 6 so2e its SpropertyS Q/60 such that' a0 Q/*10 is true, Q/*20 is true, $$$, Q/*100 is true /i$e$ the axio2s *1-*10 possess property 40$ b0 7f Q/60 is true and Q/6`G0 is true, then Q/G0 is true /i$e$ 5# Spreser!esS property Q0$ Hence, Q/90 is true for all the for2ulas 9 that are pro!able in V* 1*10, 5#W$ c0 Q/*110 is false /*11 does not possess property 40$ 7f we could obtain such a property 4, then, of course, this would de2onstrate that *11 cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*10, 5#W, i$e$ that the La: o! #9cluded Middle is an inde$endent logical $rinci$le$ The 2ost popular way of introducing such properties of for2ulas are the socalled S2ulti-!alued logicsS or S2any-!alued logicsS, introduced by Han *ukasiewic: and @2il #ost'
K.Lukasie:ic=. R logice tro>wartosciowe>$ )$ch Fi%o3ofic3ny L-o-!, 1+20, !ol$ ., pp$ 1,+1=1 #.Post$ 7ntroduction to a general theory of ele2entary propositions ( Amer( Ao$rn( math(, 1+21, !ol$ 21, pp$1,&-1+. (ead 2ore' 5any-Valued *ogic by %iegfried Aottwald in %tanford @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy$

9or exa2ple, let us consider a kind of Sthree-!alued logicS, where 0 2eans SfalseS, 1 3 SunknownS /or ?)** 3 in ter2s of %D*0, 2 3 StrueS$ Then it would be natural to define con>unction and dis>unction as
A B ^ 2in/6,G0 A B ^ 2ax/6,G0$

Gut how should we define i2plication and negation8 6 G 0 0

A B A B 6`G

i1

=0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 i2 i& ii. i, i= iC i+

6 f6 0 i10 1 i11 2 i12 Thus, theoretically, we ha!e here to explore' &+ ^ 1+,C& !ariants of i2plication definitions and && ^ 2= negation definitions$ o you think, it would be natural to set the !alues of f6 as follows8 6 f6 0 2

1 1 2 0

Kes, if we would try building a SnaturalS three-!alued logic, in which S1S would 2ean, indeed, SunknownS$ To fill in the MnaturalN table of three-!alued i2plication, we could use, for exa2ple, the classical eQui!alence /6`G0af6!G$ 7n this way we could obtain the MnaturalN three-!alued logic used, for exa2ple, for handling of ?)**-!alues in %D*$ Howe!er, our ai2 is here, in a sense, >ust the opposite of MnaturalN$ 1e will

=. consider Sunder the abo!e truth tables, for2ula 6 always takes StrueS !aluesS as a kind of the abo!e-2entioned SpropertyS Q/60$ Hence, we will try to define the tables for i2plication and negation in such a way that' a0 the axio2s *1, *2, $$$, *10 always take StrueS !alues /i$e$ 20, b0 5odus #onens Spreser!esS taking always StrueS !alues /i$e$ if the for2ulas 6 and 6`G are always 2, then G also is always 20, c0 the axio2 *11 so2eti2es takes the !alues 0 or 1$ Gecause of S!iolatingS *11, the definitions of i2plication and negation, ha!ing these properties, cannot be 100T natural$ %o, we 2ust explore /at least so2e of0 the SunnaturalS !ersions as well$ #9ercise 0.G.)$ input' e!elop a si2ple /recursi!e0 co2puter progra2 recei!ing as

a0 6ny such Struth tablesS$ b0 6ny for2ula 9 consisting of letters 6, G, <, and propositional connecti!es$ and printing out Struth !aluesS of the for2ula 9, for exa2ple, if 9 ^ G`/6`G0' 6 G G`/6`G0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

7n this exa2ple the axio2 *1 always takes StrueS !alues$ #erhaps, we should be interested only in those !ariants of our Struth tablesS that SsatisfyS at least

=, the axio2s *1, *2, $$$, *C forcing the2 always to take StrueS !alues$
6ote$ %ee 2y !ersion of the progra2 in <\\' header file, i2ple2entation$

Thus, we consider Sunder the abo!e truth tables, for2ula 6 always takes StrueS !aluesS as a kind of the SpropertyS Q/60$ 1ill 5odus #onens preser!e this property8 7f 6 is StrueS, and 6`G is StrueS, how could G be not8 *et us consider the rele!ant part of the abo!e truth tables /i$e$ the part where 6 is StrueS0' 6 G 6`G 2 0 2 1 2 2 i= iC i+

7f we would consider only those !ariants of our Struth tablesS where i = ^ 0 or 1, iC ^ 0 or 1, and i+ ^ 2, then, if G would not be 2 for so2e !alues of its argu2ents, then 6`G also would not be 2 for the sa2e !alues of argu2ents$ Hence, if we restrict oursel!es to Struth tablesS with i= ^ 0 or 1, iC ^ 0 or 1, and i+ ^ 2, then 5# preser!es the property of Sbeing trueS$ I.e., !rom >true> !ormulas MP can derive only >true> !ormulas. The next idea' if we wish the axio2 * ,' 6`6!G always taking the !alue StrueS /i$e$ the !alue 20, then, i! 5L', then 5F' must be 0. Thus, of all the &+ ^ 1+,C& possible i2plication definition !ariants only the following &]2]2 ^ 12 !ariants are worth of exploring' 6 G 6`G 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2

1 0 i-^0,1,2 1 1 2

== 1 2 2

2 0 i=^0,1 2 1 iC^0,1 2 2 2

#9ercise 0.G.0$ a0 Verify that under any of these 12 i2plication definitions the axio2s *&, *-, *,, *= always take the !alue 2, i$e$ you do not need testing these axio2s any 2ore$ b0 9or each of the axio2s, *1, *2, *. and *C, deter2ine all the possible co2binations of the !alues of i-, i=, iC forcing it to take always the !alue 2$ 6ote. The SintersectionS of b0 consists of . co2binations /see the results file [000$ #9ercise 0.G.+$ @xtend your pre!ious co2puter progra2 by adding , nested loops' for i-^0 to 2, for i=^0 to 1, for iC^0 to1, for iaa^0 to 2, for ib^0 to 2, for ic^0 to 2$ *et the progra2 print out only those !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C$ /5y progra2 yields 1&. such !ariants, see the results file [000$ Thus, now we ha!e 1&. !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C$ *et us search a2ong the2 for the !ariants that allow pro!ing of axio2 independency results we are interested in$ 59iom L* 7n Theore2 2$C$1 we established that the axio2 L*' /6`G0`//6`fG0`f60 can be pro!ed in V*1-*C, *10, *11, 5#W$ %till, ;heorem 0.G.0$ The axio2 *+ cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*C, *10, 5#W$ Proo!$ *et your progra2 print out only those !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C, and 2ake' *+ 3 not StrueS, and *10 3 StrueS$ 5y progra2 yields ,, such !ariants, see the results file [01$ 7 like especially the /2ost natural80 !ariant [&&' 72plication !ariant [&' 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 *1-*C true$ Variant [&&$ ?egation' 2 1 0 *+ not true$ *10 true$ *11 not true$ 6 G 6`G

=C 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2

6 f6 0 1 2 2 1 0

%ee the extended results file [1 for this !ariant$ )nder this !ariant the axio2s * 1-*C and *10 are StrueS$ 6s we know, under this !ariant, by 5#, fro2 StrueS for2ulas only StrueS for2ulas can be deri!ed$ The axio2 *+ is not StrueS under this !ariant' 6 G /6`G0`//6`fG0`f60 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

=+ 2 1 2 2 2 2

Hence, *+ cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*C, *10, 5#W$ D$@$ $ 7n a si2ilar way, we can obtain other independence results$ 59iom L)I ;heorem 0.G.+$ The Scra:yS axio2 L)I' fG`/G`<0 cannot be pro!ed in the 2ini2al logic V*1-*+, 5#W, and e!en not in V*1-*+, *11, 5#W$ Proo!$ *et your progra2 print out only those !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C, and 2ake' *+ 3 StrueS, *10 3 not StrueS, and *11 3 StrueS$ 5y progra2 yields , such !ariants, see the results file [02$ 7 like especially the /so2ewhat natural80 !ariant [1' 72plication !ariant [1' 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 *1-*C true$ Variant [1$ ?egation' 2 2 1 *+ true$ *10 not true$ *11 true$ %ee the extended results file [2 for this !ariant$ )nder this !ariant the axio2s *1-*+ and *11 are StrueS$ 6s we know, under this !ariant, by 5#, fro2 StrueS for2ulas only StrueS for2ulas can be deri!ed$ The axio2 *10 is not StrueS under this !ariant' 6 G f6`/6`G0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2

C0 Hence, *10 cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*+, *11, 5#W$ D$@$ $ 59iom L)) ?ow, let us pro!e the 2ain result of this section' ;heorem 0.G.,. The *aw of @xcluded 5iddle L))' B7 B cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e propositional logic V*1-*10, 5#W$ 7$e$ the La: o! #9cluded Middle is an inde$endent logical $rinci$le$ Proo!$ *et your progra2 print out only those !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C, and 2ake' *+ 3 StrueS, *10 3 StrueS, *11 3 not StrueS$ 5y progra2 yields only one such !ariant, see the results file [0&' 72plication !ariant [1' 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 *1-*C true$ Variant [1$ ?egation' 2 0 0 *+ true$ *10 true$ *11 not true$ %ee the extended results file [& for this !ariant$ )nder this !ariant the axio2s *1-*10 are StrueS$ 6s we know, under this !ariant, by 5#, fro2 StrueS for2ulas only StrueS for2ulas can be deri!ed$ The axio2 *11 is not StrueS under this !ariant' G fG 0 1 2 2 0 0
B 7 B

2 1 2

Hence, *11 cannot be pro!ed in V*1-*10, 5#W$ D$@$ $ The results file [0& pro!es also the following ;heorem 0.G./ (thanks to #a!els 5ihailo!s for a correction ). The following /classically pro!able0 for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e propositional logic V*1-*10, 5#W' ff6 ` 6 /fG ` f60 ` /6`G0 /f6`G0`/fG`60 /ff6 ` ffG0 ` /6`G0 ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B (( A5 B ) 5 B ) 5 A B //6`G0`60`6

C1 7 ( A 7 B ) 5 ( A 5 B ) 7 ( A 5 B ) 5 A 7 B A( A 5 B ) /6`G0`//f6`fG0`/G`600 7ndeed, all these for2ulas take non-StrueS !alues under the Struth tablesS fro2 the proof of Theore2 2$C$-$ The following three for2ulas also cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e propositional logic, yet, unfortunately, the Struth tablesS fro2 our proof of Theore2 2$C$- do not allow pro!ing this' 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A 7 B 77 ( A B ) 5 77 A7 7 B ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) 7ndeed, under the abo!e Struth tablesS, these for2ulas always take StrueS !alues /see results file [0&0$ 6nother interesting conclusion' add these three !ormulas as additional a9ioms to (L)DL)I, MP- E and L)) :ill remain still un$rovable8 Thus, we did not succeed in building a three-!alued logic that would allow showing that the latter three for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e propositional logic$ 7s it possible at all to build a 2ulti-!alued logic that would separate constructi!ely pro!able propositional for2ulas fro2 unpro!able ones8 "urt AFdel showed in 1+&2 that this is i2possible' none o! the !initelyD valued logics >matches> e9actly the constructive $ro$ositional logic?
K. 7Mdel$ Lu2 intuitionistischen 6ussagenkalkgl, An3eiger A&a+emie +er Bissenschaften Bien, 5ath$-naturwiss$ "lasse, 1+&2, Vol$ ,+, pp$,.-,,$

#9ercise 0.G.,$ a0 /for s2art students0 Verify that the latter three for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e propositional logic V* 1-*10, 5#W$ Rr, see %ection -$-$ b0 Verify that any of the following for2ulas could be used 3 instead of B7 B 3 as the axio2 *11 of the classical propositional logic' i0 ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B , ii0 ffG`G, iii0 f/6`G0`6 /Hint' since all these for2ulas are pro!able in V*1-*11, 5#W, it re2ains to pro!e * 11 in V*1-*10, 5#W \ /i0, in V*1-*10, 5#W \ /ii0, and in V*1-*10, 5#W \ /iii00$ c0 Verify that with ffG`G instead of *11 the Scra:yS axio2 *10 beco2es 100T deri!able fro2 the other axio2s$ #erhaps, this is why 2any textbooks prefer the co2bination *1-*+ \ ffG`G as the axio2 list for the classical propositional logic$ Gut, then, we are forced to define the constructi!e propositional logic not as a subset of the classical one, but as the classical

C2 logic with the axio2 ffG`G replaced by the Scra:yS axio2 * 10' fG`/G`<0; 59iom L)I again... 9inally, let us check which of the 2ain results of %ections 2$. /constructi!e logic0 and 2$, /classical logic0 depend on the Scra:yS axio2 * 10' f6`/6`G0$ *et your progra2 print out only those !ariants of Struth tablesS that 2ake StrueS all the axio2s *1-*C, and 2ake' *+ 3 StrueS, *10 3 not StrueS$ 5y progra2 yields , such !ariants, see the results file [0-$ %urprisingly, in all these !ariants *11 also is StrueS /thus, the results file [0- eQuals the results file [020$ 6s the 2ost producti!e appears 72plication !ariant [1' 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 *1-*C true$ Variant [1$ ?egation' 2 2 1 *+ true$ *10 not true$ *11 true$ <onstructi!ely pro!able for2ulas ?ot true' ( A B) 5 (( 7 A) 5 B ) ?ot true' (( 7 A ) B ) 5 ( A 5 B ) ?ot true' //ff60`/ffG00`/ff/6`G00 ?ot true' /ff60`//f60`60 ?ot true' ( A ( 7 A)) 5 (( 7 7 A) 5 A) ?ot true' ff//ff60`60 <lassically pro!able for2ulas True' ( 77 ( A B )) 5 (( 77 A)( 7 7 B )) True' ( 7 ( A B)) 5 (( 7 A )( 7 B )) ?ot true' /ff60`6 ?ot true' //fG0`/f600`/6`G0 ?ot true' //f60`G0`//fG0`60 ?ot true' //ff60`/ffG00`/6`G0 True' ( A 5 B ) 5 (( 7 A) B ) ?ot true' (( A5 B ) 5 B )5 ( A B ) ?ot true' //6`G0`60`6 ?ot true' ( 7 ( A( 7 B ))) 5 ( A5 B ) True' /6`G0`///f60`G0`G0 ?ot true' ( 7 ( A 5 B )) 5 ( A( 7 B )) ?ot true' A( A 5 B ) True' ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) ?ot true' /6`G0`///f60`/fG00`/G`600 Thus, the following constructi!ely pro!able for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the 2ini2al logic V*1-*+, 5#W /and e!en in V*1-*+, *11, 5#W0, i$e$ they cannot be

C& pro!ed without the Scra:yS axio2 *10' ( A B) 5 ( 7 A 5 B ) 7 A B 5 ( A5 B ) /ff6`ffG0 ` ff/6`G0 ff6 ` /f6`60 A7 A 5 ( 77 A 5 A ) ff/ff6`60 6nd the following classically pro!able for2ulas cannot be pro!ed without the Scra:yS axio2 *10 (thanks to #a!els 5ihailo!s for a correction)' ff6`6 /fG`f60`/6`G0 /f6`G0`/fG`60 /ff6`ffG0`/6`G0 (( A5 B ) 5 B ) 5 A B //6`G0`60`6 7 ( A 7 B ) 5 ( A 5 B ) 7 ( A 5 B ) 5 A 7 B A( A 5 B ) /6`G0`//f6`fG0`/G`600 #9ercise 0.G./ /thanks to %tanisla! Aolubco! for the idea0$ Gut how about the re2aining four /classically pro!able0 for2ulas' a0 ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B , b0 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B , c0 77 ( A B ) 5 77 A7 7 B , c10 /6`G0`//f6`G0`G0, d0 ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) 8 %how that the for2ulas /a, b, c0 can be pro!ed without the Scra:yS axio2 *10, i$e pro!e the2 in V*1-*+, *11, 5#W$ /Hint' use Theore2 2$,$- /a0 V* 1-*C, 5#W' A7 A U- ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B( 0$ 9or s2art students' how about the re2aining for2ulas /c1, d08
sing com$uters in mathematical $roo!s Do you trust the above $roo!s4 #ersonally, 7 trust 2uch 2ore 2y ability to write /relati!ely0 error-free co2puter progra2s than 2y ability to carry out error-free 2athe2atical proofs$ Gut how about you8 Rf course, you do not need trusting 2y /or your own0 progra2 generating the results files [00, [01, [02, [0& and [0-$ 1e used these files only to select the Struth tableS !ariants allowing to pro!e our independence results$ The critical points to be trusted are /see 2y i2ple2entation file0 ' a0 the recursi!e progra2 int 5y9or2ula''Value6t/int 6, int G, int <0

Cand b0 the character string analy:er int 5y9or2ula''6naly:e/int ]pRperation, 6nsi%tring ]p%ub9or2ula1, 6nsi%tring ]p%ub9or2ula20 Kou 2ay wish to re2o!e your worries by !erifying directly that under all the & truth table !ariants used abo!e' a0 the axio2s * 1-*C are true, and b0 the axio2s * +, *10, *11 and other for2ulas are true or not true according to the goal of each particular proof$ Gefore you ha!e perfor2ed this 100T, you can feel the !lavor o! using com$uters in mathematical $roo!s /7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it, 7 trust this proof, 7 do not trust it,$$$0 )nfortunately, in 2ore co2plicated cases the situation does not allow the abo!e si2ple exit /i$e$ 2anual !erification of the solution found by a co2puter0' SThe 9our <olour Theore2 was the first 2a>or theore2 to be pro!ed using a co2puter, ha!ing a proof that could not be !erified directly by other 2athe2aticians$ espite so2e worries about this initially, independent !erification soon con!inced e!eryone that the 9our <olour Theore2 had finally been pro!ed$ etails of the proof appeared in two articles in 1+==$ (ecent work has led to i2pro!e2ents in the algorith2$S /6ccording to the article' The 9our <olour Theore2 in 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ The proof of the 9our <olour Theore2 was co2pleted in 1+=, by "enneth 6ppel and 1olfgang Haken, see their photographs published in @uropean 5athe2atical %ociety, ?ewsletter ?o$ -,, ece2ber 2002, pp$ 1.-1+$ SThe best-known, and 2ost debated, instance is the use of co2puter analysis by "enneth 6ppel and 1olfgang Haken of the )ni!ersity of 7llinois in their 1+=, proof of the four-colour con>ecture /that four colours suffice to colour in any 2ap drawn upon a plane in such a way that countries which share a border are gi!en different colours0$ 9irst put forward in 1C.2, the con>ecture had beco2e perhaps the 2ost fa2ous unsol!ed proble2 in 2athe2atics, resisting a 2ultitude of efforts at proof for o!er a century$ 6ppel and HakenBs de2onstration rested upon co2puteri:ed analysis, occupying 1,200 hours of co2puter ti2e, of o!er 1,-00 graphs$ The analysis of e!en one of those graphs typically went beyond what an unaided hu2an being could plausibly do' the ense2ble of their de2onstration certainly could not be checked in detail by hu2an beings$ 7n conseQuence, whether that de2onstration constituted SproofS was deeply contro!ersial$$$S /according to onald 5ac"en:ie$ <o2puters and the %ociology of 5athe2atical #roof$ 7n' Tren+s in the History an+ Phi%osophy of .athematics , Rdense' )ni!ersity of %outhern en2ark, 200-, pp$,=-C,0$ %ee also "en 6ppel on the -<T proof, ece2ber 1++C (obin 1ilson$ 9our <olours %uffice$ @uropean 5athe2atical %ociety, ?ewsletter ?o$ -,, ece2ber 2002, pp$ 1.-1+ /online copy0$ The 9our <olor Theore2, ?o!e2ber 1&, 1++., by (obin Tho2as$ 6 co2puter-checked proof of the 9our <olour Theore2, 200-, by Aeorges Aonthier$ oron Leilberger$ Rpinion .-' 7t is 72portant to "eep *ooking for ?on-<o2puter #roofs of

C.
the 9our-<olor Theore2, Gut ?ot 9or the S)sualS (easons /a!ailable online at http'PPwww$2ath$rutgers$eduPf:eilbergPRpinion.-$ht2l0$ Two other fa2ous co2puter assisted 2athe2atical proofs' - 7n 1+C+, by using <ray super-co2puters, <le2ent 1$ H$ *a2 finished his proof that finite pro>ecti!e plane of order 10 is i2possible /for details see #ro>ecti!e plane in 1ikipedia0$ - 7n 1++C, Tho2as <$ Hales finished his proof of "epler con>ecture about the densest arrange2ent of spheres in space /Hohannes "epler con>ectured it in 1,11, for details see "epler con>ecture in 1ikipedia0$ %ee logical software links selected by #eter %uber$ Visit the 5i:ar #ro>ect$

C,

+. Predicate Logic
+.). Proving <ormulas "ontaining Nuanti!iers and Im$lication only
;heorem +.).I. V*1, *2, *12, *1&, 5#W U- xG/x0`xG/x0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 7t prohibits Se2pty do2ainsS$ 7ndeed, /10 xG/x0 /20 xG/x0`G/x0 /&0 G/x0 /-0 G/x0`xG/x0 /.0 xG/x0 Hypothesis$ 6xio2 *12$ Gy 5#$ 6xio2 *1&$ Gy 5#$

Thus, by V*1, *2, 5#W eduction Theore2 1, there is a proof of V* 1, *2, *12, *1&, 5#W U- xG/x0`xG/x0$ ;heorem +.).). a0 V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 *et us pro!e /a0$ /10 x/G`<0 /20 xG /&0 x/G`<0`/G`<0 /-0 G`< /.0 xG`G /,0 G Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /10 and /&0, by 5#$ 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /20 and /.0, by 5#$

C= /=0 < /C0 x< 9ro2 /-0 and /,0, by 5#$ 9ro2 /=0, by Aen$

7n this proof, Aen is applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in x/G`<0 and xG$ Thus, by V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW eduction Theore2 2, there is a proof of V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0 ` /xG`x<0$ *et us pro!e /b0$ /10 x/G`<0 /20 x/G`<0`/G`<0 /&0 G`< /-0 <`x< /.0 G`x< /,0 x/G`x<0 /=0 x/G`x<0`/xG`x<0 /C0 xG`x< Hypothesis$ 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /10 and /20, by 5#$ 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ 9ro2 /.0, by Aen$ 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0 /x< does not contain x as a free !ariable0$ 9ro2 /,0 and /=0, by 5#$

7n this proof, Aen is applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in x/G`<0$ Thus, by V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW eduction Theore2 2, there is a proof of V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0 ` /xG`x<0$ D$$ $ ;heorem +.).0. a0 V*1, *2, *., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- xyG/x, y0ayxG/x, y0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 b0 V*1, *2, *., *1&, *1., 5#, AenW U- xyG/x, y0ayxG/x, y0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 c0 V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- xyG/x, y0`yxG/x, y0$ 1hat does it 2ean8 The con!erse i2plication xyG/x, y0`yxG/x, y0 cannot be true$ @xplain, why$ *et us pro!e /b0$

CC /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 G/x, y0`xG/x, y0 xG/x, y0`yxG/x, y0 G/x, y0`yxG/x, y0 9/x0`A U- x9/x0`A yG/x, y0`yxG/x, y0 xyG/x, y0`yxG/x, y0 6xio2 *1& with 9/x0 ^ G/x, y0$ 6xio2 *1& with 9/y0 ^ xG/x, y0$ 9ro2 /10 and /20, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ @xercise 1$-$&/a0' V*1., 5#, AenW, x not free in A$ 9ro2 /&0, by /-0, with 9/y0 ^ G/x, y0, A ^ xyG/x, y0$ 9ro2 /.0, by /-0, with 9/x0 ^ yG/x, y0, A ^ xyG/x, y0$

The proof of the con!erse i2plication V* 1, *2, *1&, *1., 5#, AenW U- yxG/x, y0`xyG/x, y0 is identical$ ?ow, by 6xio2 *. we obtain the eQui!alence /b0$ D$@$ $ #9ercise +.).). #ro!e /a0 and /c0 of Theore2 &$1$2$ #9ercise +.).0. #ro!e in the constructi!e logic, V*1-*10, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- x/G/x0`</x00 ` /xG/x0`x</x00$

+.0. <ormulas "ontaining 6egations and a .ingle Nuanti!ier

5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 fxG ` xfG$ This for2ula is accepted in the classical logic' if no x can possess the property G, then there is an x that does not possess G$ 7t represents non-constructi!e reasoning in its ulti2ate for2' let us assu2e, all x-s possess the property G, if we succeed in deri!ing a contradiction fro2 this assu2ption, then 3 what8 7s this a proof that there is a particular x that does not possess the property G8 oes our proof contain a 2ethod allowing to build at least one such x8 7f not, do we ha!e a SrealS proof of xfG8 How 2any for2ulas can be built of the for2ula G by using negations and a single Quantifier8 ffffffffffxffffffffffG

C+ ffffffffffxffffffffffG *et us recall Theore2 2$-$. V*1-*+, 5#W' U- fff6af6$ 7$e$, any nu2ber of negations can be reduced to :ero, one, or two, and thus we obtain &]2]& ^ 1C for2ulas to be in!estigated$ The following table represents the results of this in!estigation fro2 5.&eyting. Rn weakened Quantification$ /o$rna% of Symbo%ic Logic, 1+&,, !ol$11, pp$11+-121 /see also "leene V1+.2W, %ection &$.0$ ;able +.0 I III

xG xfG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ffxG ffxfG ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fxffG xffG ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ffxffG fxG fxfG II xG -------------------------------------------xffG -------------------------------------------ffxG ffxffG fxfG IV xfG ffxfG fxffG fxG

Legend$ a0 7n the classical logic, within each of the - groups all for2ulas are eQui!alent, for exa2ple, in group 777' fxGaxfG$ Rf course, for2ulas of different groups cannot be eQui!alent /explain, why0$ b0 Two for2ulas within a group are constructi!ely eQui!alent, if and only if they ha!e no separating lines between the2$ 9or exa2ple, in group 77' constructi!ely, fxfGaffxG, but not fxfGaxG /explain, why0$ 6ll the for2ulas of the group 7V are constructi!ely eQui!alent$ c0 7f two for2ulas 91, 92 within a group /91 3 abo!e, 92 3 below0 are separated by a single line, then' constructi!ely, 91`92, and ff/92`910, but not 92`91$ 9or exa2ple, in group 77' constructi!ely, xG`fxfG, and ff/fxfG`xG0, but not fxfG`xG /explain, why0$

+0 d0 7f two for2ulas 91, 92 within a group /91 3 abo!e, 92 3 below0 are separated by a double line, then' constructi!ely, 91`92, but not 92`91, and e!en not ff/92`910$ 9or exa2ple, in group 777' constructi!ely, xfG`fxG, but not fxG`xfG, and e!en not ff/fxG`xfG0 /try to explain, why0$ Thus, the i2plication fxG`xfG could be Qualified as su$erDnonD constructive$ ?ow, let us pro!e the i2plications necessary for the positi!e part of the abo!e legend to be true$ 7rou$ I 7-1$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- xG`ffxG 722ediately, by Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 7-2$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- ffxG`xffG /10 xG`G /20 ffxG`ffG /&0 x/ffxG`ffG0 /-0 ffxG`xffG 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0 V*1-*+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by 6xio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$

7-&$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- xffG`ffxffG 722ediately, by Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 7--$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *12, *1., 5#, AenW U- ffxffG`fxfG /10 /20 xffG`ffG fffG`fxffG 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw 3 Theore2 2$-$2$ V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U/6`G0`/fG`f60$ Gy Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$

/&0

fG`fffG

+1 9ro2 /20 and /&0, by transiti!ity of i2plication 3 Theore2 1$-$2 V*1, *2, 5#W$ 9ro2 /-0, by Aen$ 9ro2 /.0, by 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ 9ro2 /,0, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

/-0 /.0 /,0 /=0

fG`f xffG x/fG`fxffG0 xfG`fxffG ffxffG`fxfG

7-.$ 7n the classical logic, V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxfG`xG /10 fG`xfG /20 fxfG`ffG /&0 ffG`G /-0 fxfG`G /.0 x/fxfG`G0 /,0 fxfG`xG 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$ <lassical logic, Theore2 2$,$1 V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 ` 6 9ro2 /20 and /&0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ 9ro2 /-0, Gy Aen$ 9ro2 /.0, by 6xio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 7, constructi!ely, 9 1`92`9&`9-`9., and, in the classical logic, 9.`91$ 7$e$ we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 7' a0 in the classical logic, all the for2ulas are eQui!alent, and b0 constructi!ely, upper for2ulas i2ply lower for2ulas$ 7-,$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxfG`xffG /10 fG`xfG /20 fxfG`ffG 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

+2 /&0 x/fxfG`ffG0 /-0 fxfG`xffG 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by 6xio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 7, constructi!ely, V* 1, *2, *+, *12 -*1., 5#, AenW' 9&`9-`9.`9&, i$e$ that for2ulas 9&, 9-, 9. are constructi!ely eQui!alent$ 9or Aroup 7, it re2ains to pro!e 7-=$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*10, 5#W U- ff/ffxG`xG0 722ediately, by Theore2 2$.$2/d0 V*1-*10, 5#W U- ff/ff6`60$ 7rou$ II 77-1$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- xG`xffG /10 G`ffG /20 x/G`ffG0 /&0 xG`xffG Gy Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U6`ff6$ 9ro2 /10, by Aen$ 9ro2 /20, by Theore2 &$1$1/b0 V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW

77-2$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U-xffG`ffxG /10 G`xG /20 ffG`ffxG /&0 x/ffG`ffxG0 /-0 xffG`ffxG 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0 V*1-*+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by Theore2 &$1$1/b0 V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW

77-&$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- ffxG`ffxffG 722ediately fro2 77-1, by 9ro2 /10, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0 V* 1-*+, 5#W' U/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ 77--$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12, *1., 5#, AenW U- ffxffG`fxfG

+& /10 xfG`fG /20 ffG`fxfG /&0 x/ffG`fxfG0 /-0 xffG`fxfG /.0 ffxffG`fffxfG /,0 fffxfG`fxfG /=0 ffxffG`fxfG 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw 3 Theore2 2$-$2$ V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U/6`G0`/fG`f60$ 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ 9ro2 /-0, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0 V*1-*+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ Theore2 2$-$. V*1-*+, 5#W' Ufff6af6 9ro2 /.0 and /,0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

77-.$ 7n the classical logic, V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxfG`xG /10 fxfG`ffxG /20 ffxG`xG /&0 fxfG`xG 77-, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW, see below$ <lassical logic, Theore2 2$,$1 V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 ` 6 9ro2 /10 and /20, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 77, constructi!ely, 9 1`92`9&`9-`9., and, in the classical logic, 9.`91$ 7$e$ we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 77' a0 in the classical logic, all the for2ulas are eQui!alent, and b0 constructi!ely, upper for2ulas i2ply lower for2ulas$ 77-,$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW U- fxfG`ffxG /10 G`xG 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$

+9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw 3 Theore2 2$-$2$ V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U/6`G0`/fG`f60$ 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by 6xio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$ 9ro2 /-0, by the <ontraposition *aw 3 Theore2 2$-$2$ V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U/6`G0`/fG`f60$

/20 fxG`fG /&0 x/fxG`fG0 /-0 fxG`xfG

/.0 fxfG`ffxG

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 77, constructi!ely, V* 1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' 9&`9-`9.`9&, i$e$ that for2ulas 9&, 9-, 9. are constructi!ely eQui!alent$ 77-=$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff/ffxG`xG0 722ediately, by Theore2 2$.$2 V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff/ff6`60$ Thus, constructi!ely, ff/9&`910, and 91`92`9&`9-`9.`9&$ Gy Theore2 2$-$=/d0, V*1-*+, 5#W ff/6`G0, ff/G`<0 U- ff/6`<0$ Thus, in fact, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 77, for all i, >, constructi!ely, ff/9 i`9>0 /a kind of Sweak eQui!alenceS0$ 7rou$ III 777-1$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- xfG`ffxfG 722ediately, by Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 777-2$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *12, *1., 5#, AenW' U- ffxfG`fxffG /10 xffG`ffxffG /20 ffxffG`fxfG /&0 xffG`fxfG 7-& V*1, *2, *+, 5#W, see abo!e$ 7-- V*1, *2, *+, *12, *1., 5#, AenW, see abo!e$ 9ro2 /10 and /20, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

+. /-0 ffxfG`fxffG 9ro2 /&0, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

777-&$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxffG`fxG /10 xG`ffxG /20 ffxG`xffG /&0 xG`xffG /-0 fxffG`fxG 7-1 V*1, *2, *+, 5#W, see abo!e$ 7-2 V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW 9ro2 /10 and /20, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ 9ro2 /&0, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

777--$ 7n the classical logic, V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxG`xfG /10 fxfG`xG /20 fxG`ffxfG /&0 ffxfG`xfG /-0 fxG`xfG 7-.' in the classical logic, V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$ <lassical logic, Theore2 2$,$1 V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 ` 6 9ro2 /20 and /&0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 777, constructi!ely, 9 1`92`9&`9-, and, in the classical logic, 9-`91$ 7$e$ we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 777' a0 in the classical logic, all the for2ulas are eQui!alent, and b0 constructi!ely, upper for2ulas i2ply lower for2ulas$ 777--$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxffG`ffxfG /10 fxfG`xffG /20 fxffG`ffxfG 7-, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 777, constructi!ely, 92`9&`92, i$e$ that

+, for2ulas 92, 9& are constructi!ely eQui!alent$ 777-.$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff/ffxfG`xfG0 722ediately, by Theore2 2$.$2 V*1-*10, 5#W' U- ff/ff6`60$ 7rou$ IV 7V-1$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- xfG`ffxfG 722ediately, by Theore2 2$-$- V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 7V-2$ <onstructi!ely, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- ffxfG`fxffG /10 xffG`fxfG 9ro2 77-2, 77-&, 77-- V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

/20 ffxfG`fxffG

7V-&$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- fxffG`fxG /10 xG`xffG /20 fxffG`fxG 77-1 V*1, *2, *+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$

7V--$ <onstructi!ely, V*1, *2, *+, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxG`xfG /10 G`xG /20 fxG`fG /&0 x/fxG`fG0 /-0 fxG`xfG 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$ 9ro2 /20, by Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by 6xio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that in Aroup 7V all the for2ulas are constructi!ely eQui!alent$ 6nd thus, we ha!e pro!ed the positi!e part of the legend of Table &$2$ The negati!e part of the legend asserts that the following /classically pro!able0

+= for2ulas cannot be pro!ed constructi!ely' /10 ffxG`xG /20 xffG`ffxG /&0 ff/xffG`ffxG0 /-0 xffG`xG /.0 ffxG`xffG /,0 ffxfG`xfG /=0 fxG`fxffG /C0 ff/fxG`fxffG0 %ee Aroup 7$ %i2ply, an instance of /the nonconstructi!e0 ff6`6$ %ee Aroup 7$ .u$erDnonDconstructive' e!en ff/20 is non-constructi!e; ff/20$ %ee Aroup 7$ %ee Aroup 77$ ?early, an instance of /the nonconstructi!e0 ff6`6$ %ee Aroup 77$ %tronger than si2ply nonconstructi!ity of ff6`68 %ee Aroup 777$ %i2ply, an instance of /the non-constructi!e0 ff6`6$ %ee Aroup 777$ .u$erDnonDconstructive' e!en ff/=0 is non-constructi!e; ff/=0$ %ee Aroup 777$

1e will pro!e these facts in %ection -$. /see @xercise -$.$10$ %till, the 2ost striking /classically pro!able0 non-constructi!e Quantifier i2plications correspond to existence proofs !ia re+$ctio a+ abs$r+$m' ff/C0 is constructi!ely pro!able, but /C0 is not, see Aroup 77$ 7f we know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 xfG, then 2ay be, we do not know how to find a particular x such that G$ /+0 is weaker than /C0, but still nonconstructi!e, see Aroup 77$ 7f we know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 xfG, then 2ay be, we do not know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 fxffG$ !en ff/100 is non-constructi!e, see Aroup 777$ 7f we know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 xG, then 2ay be, we do not know how to find a particular x such that fG$

/C0

fxfG`xG

/+0

fxfG`ffxffG

/100 fxG`xfG

+C /110 is weaker than /100, but still super-nonconstructi!e /i$e$ e!en ff/110 is nonconstructi!e0, see Aroup 777$ 7f we know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 xG, then 2ay be, we do not know how to deri!e a contradiction fro2 fxfG$

/110 fxG`ffxfG

+.+. Proving <ormulas "ontaining "onBunction and DisBunction

;heorem +.+.). a0 V*1-*., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- x ( B C ) 6 xB xC $ b0 V*1, *2, *,-*C, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- xB xC 5 x ( BC ) $ The con!erse for2ula x ( B C ) 5 xB xC cannot be true$ @xplain, why$ #9ercise +.+.). #ro!e V*&-*., *12, 5#, AenW' x ( B C ) U- xB xC V*&-*., *12, 5#, AenW' xB xC U- x ( B C ) $ %ince, in your first proof, Aen has been applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in x/GI<0, then, by eduction theore2 2 V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1- *., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- x ( B C ) 5 xB xC $ %i2ilarly, in your second proof, Aen has been applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in xB xC , then, by eduction theore2 2 V* 1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1- *., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- xB xC 5 x ( BC ) $ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0 V*.W' 6, G U- A B , we obtain the eQui!alence /a0 of Theore2 &$&$1$ *et us pro!e /b0' U- xB xC 5 x ( BC ) $ /10 /20 and

B 5 BC
x ( B 5 B C )

6xio2 *,$ 9ro2 /10, by Aen$

++ /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 xB 5 x ( BC ) C 5 BC x ( C 5 B C ) xC 5 x ( BC ) 9ro2 /20, by Theore2 &$1$1/a0 V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW$ 6xio2 *=$ 9ro2 /-0, by Aen$ 9ro2 /.0, by Theore2 &$1$1/a0 V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW$

xB xC 5 x ( BC ) 9ro2 /&0 and /,0, by 6xio2 *C$

The su22ary is V*1, *2, *,-*C, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW$ D$@$ $ ;heorem +.+.0. a0 V*1-*C, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- x ( BC ) 6 xB xC $ b0 V*1-*., *1&-*1., 5#, AenW' U- x ( BC ) 5 xB xC $ The con!erse i2plication xB xC 5 x ( BC ) cannot be true$ @xplain, why$ 9or the proof of x ( BC ) 5 xB xC , see @xercise &$&$2/a0 below$ *et us pro!e xB xC 5 x ( BC ) $ /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 B 5 BC x ( B 5 B C ) 6xio2 *,$ Gy Aen$ Gy Theore2 &$1$1/b0' V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0 6xio2 *=$ Gy Aen$ Gy Theore2 &$1$1/b0$

xB 5 x ( BC )
C 5 B C x ( C 5 B C ) xC 5 x ( BC )

xB xC 5 x ( B C ) 9ro2 /&0 and /,0, by 6xio2 *C$

The su22ary is V*1, *2, *,-*C, *12-*1., 5#, AenW$ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0 V*.W' 6, G U- A B , we obtain the eQui!alence /a0$ D$@$ $ #9ercise +.+.0. a0 #ro!e /a`0 of Theore2 &$&$2 /Hint' start with * 1& and finish by applying *1.$0

100 b0 #ro!e /b0 of Theore2 &$&$2$ /Hint' first, assu2e BC , deri!e xB xC , and apply eduction Theore2 10$ The con!erse i2plication xB xC 5 x ( BC ) cannot be true$ @xplain, why$

+.,. %e$lacement ;heorems

6n exa2ple' we know that log xy =log x + log y and log x y = ylog x $ Hence,
a b a b log 2 & =log 2 +log & = alog 2 +blog & $

6nother exa2ple' we know that /in the classical logic0' U- ( A 5 B ) 6 7 A B $ Hence, the for2ula /J`K0`L Sshould beS eQui!alent to 7 ( X 5 E ) F , and to 7 ( 7 X E ) F $ 1e know also that 7 ( A B ) 6 7 A7 B , hence, we can continue' /J`K0`L Sshould beS eQui!alent to ( 77 X 7 E ) F , and to ( X 7E ) F /since U-ff6a60$ )ntil now, in our logic, we could not use this !ery natural kind of 2athe2atical argu2ent$ 7n this section we will pro!e 2eta-theore2s that will allow replacing subfor2ulas by eQui!alent for2ulas$ 9or exa2ple, if ha!e pro!ed the for2ula xG` , and we know that U- Ga<, then we can replace G by <, obtaining the for2ula x<` $ These theore2s will 2ake the abo!e treat2ent of the for2ula /J`K0`L co2pletely legal$ 1e will pro!e also that the 2eaning of a for2ula does not depend on the na2es of bound !ariables used in it$ 9or exa2ple, U- /xG/x0`<0a/yG/y0`<0$ 6ote$ To pro!e all these replace2ent theore2s we will need only the minimal logic V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW$ .ubD!ormulas and Accurrences 7ntuiti!ely, G is a sub-for2ula of <, if G is a for2ula, and G is a part /substring0 of <$ Gut note that a sub-for2ula 2ay appear in the sa2e for2ula 2ore than once, as, for exa2ple, in the following instance of the axio2 * 1' 9'(9)`/x</x0`9'(9)0$ Thus, it would be 2ore correctly to speak about occurrences of sub-for2ulas$ 7n the abo!e exa2ple, there are two occurrences of the for2ula xG/x0$ The for2al definition is as follows'

101 a0 o/G0 is an occurrence in G in G$ b0 7f o/G0 is an occurrence of G in <, then o/G0 is an occurrence of G in f<, C , , ,C , C , , ,C , <` , and `<$ b0 7f o/G0 is an occurrence of G in <, then o/G0 is an occurrence of G in x<, and x<$ 1e can define also the notion of $ro$ositional occurrences' a0 o/G0 is a propositional occurrence in G in G$ b0 7f o/G0 is a propositional occurrence of G in <, then o/G0 is a propositional occurrence of G in f<, C , , ,C , C , , ,C , <` , and `<$ 7ntuiti!ely, o/G0 is a propositional occurrence of G in <, if, in <, no Quantifiers stand o!er o/G0$ %e$lacement Lemma ). 7n the 2ini2al logic, V*1-*+, 5#W' /a0 6aG U- /6`<0a/G`<0 /b0 6aG U- /<`60a/<`G0 /c0 6aG U- AC 6 B C /d0 6aG U- C A6 C B /e0 6aG UAC 6 B C V*1-*., 5#W V*1-*., 5#W V*1-*., 5#W V*1-*., 5#W V*1-*C, 5#W V*1-*C, 5#W V*1-*+, 5#W

/f0 6aG U- C A6 C B /g0 6aG U- f6afG

"ase (a). 1e will first pro!e that V*1, *2, *-, 5#W' 6aG U- /6`<0`/G`<0$ /10 ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) 6aG 3 hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by 6xio2 *-$ 9ro2 /&0 and /20, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, *-, 5#W' 6aG U-

/20 6`< /&0 G`6 /-0 G`< Thus, by V*1, *2, 5#W /6`<0`/G`<0$

102 7n a si2ilar way, we can pro!e that V*1, *2, *&, 5#W' 6aG U- /G`<0`/6`<0$ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /a0$ D$@$ $ #9ercise +.,.). #ro!e /b, c, d 0 of (eplace2ent *e22a 1$ "ase (e)? 6aG U- AC 6 B C $ 1e will first pro!e that V*1, *2, *&-*C, 5#W' 6aG U- AC 5 B C $ /10 /20 ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) A C 6aG 3 hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by 6xio2 *&$ 6xio2 *,$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ 6xio2 *=$

/&0 6`G /-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 B 5 BC

A 5 BC

C 5 B C

( A 5 BC ) 5 (( C 5 B C ) 5 ( AC 5 BC )) 6xio2 *C$ 9ro2 /=0, /.0, /,0 and /20, by 5#$

/C0 G!<

Thus, by V*1, *2, 5#W eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*C, 5#W' 6aG U- AC 5 B C $ 7n a si2ilar way, we can pro!e that V*1-*C, 5#W' 6aG U- BC 5 AC $ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /e0$ #9ercise +.,.0. #ro!e /f 0 of (eplace2ent *e22a 1$ "ase (g). 1e will first pro!e that V*1-*+, 5#W' 6aG U- f6`fG$ /10 /20 ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) f6 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

10& /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 /=0 G`6 /G`60`//G`f60`fG0 /G`f60`fG G`f6 fG 9ro2 /10, by 6xio2 *-$ 6xio2 *+$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0, by 5#$ 9ro2 /20, by 6xio2 *1$ 9ro2 /,0 and /.0, by 5#$

Thus, by V*1, *2, 5#W eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*+, 5#W' 6aG U- f6`fG$ 7n a si2ilar way, we can pro!e that V*1-*+, 5#W' 6aG U- fG`f6$ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /g0$ This co2pletes our proof of the (eplace2ent *e22a 1$ %e$lacement ;heorem ). *et us consider three for2ulas' G, GB, <, where G is a sub-for2ula of <, and o/G0 is a $ro$ositional occurrence of G in < /i$e$ no Quantifiers stand o!er o/G00$ *et us denote by <B the for2ula obtained fro2 < by replacing o/G0 by GB $ Then, in the 2ini2al logic, V*1-*+, 5#W' GaGB U- <a<B$ Proo!$ 7nduction by the SdepthS of the propositional occurrence o/G0$ Induction base? depth ^ 0$ Then < is G, and <B is GB$ The conclusion is ob!ious$ Induction ste$. 7f < is not G, then one of the following holds' a0 < is 9`A, and o/G0 is in 9$ b0 < is 9`A, and o/G0 is in A$ c0 < is F G , and o/G0 is in 9$ d0 < is F G , and o/G0 is in A$ e0 < is F G , and o/G0 is in 9$ f0 < is F G , and o/G0 is in A$ g0 < is f9, and o/G0 is in 9$ <ase /a0$ Gy induction assu2ption, V*1-*+, 5#W' GaGB U- 9a9B$ Gy (eplace2ent *e22a 1/a0, V*1-*+, 5#W' 9a9B U- /9`A0a/9B`A0$ Thus, V*1-*+, 5#W' GaGB U- <a<B$ #9ercise +.,.+. (epeat the abo!e argu2ent for the re2aining cases /b, c, d, e,

10f, g0$ D$@$ $ ?ow, we can use the replace2ent argu2ent 2entioned at the beginning of this section 3 at least, for propositional occurrences of eQui!alent sub-for2ulas$ %e$lacement Lemma 0. 7n the 2ini2al logic, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' /a0 Ga< U- xGax< /b0 Ga< U- xGax< "ase (a)$ 1e will first pro!e that V*1, *2, *&, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' Ga< U- xG`x<$ /10 ( B 5 C )(C 5 B ) Ga< 3 hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by 6xio2 *&$ 9ro2 /20, by 6xio2 *12' xG/x0`G/x0$ Gy 5#$ Gy Aen$ V*1-*., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW V*1-*., *12-*1., 5#, AenW

/20 xG /&0 G`< /-0 G /.0 < /,0 x<

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that V*&, *12, 5#, AenW' Ga<, xG U- x<$ %ince Aen has been applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in xG, then, by eduction Theore2 2 V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1, *2, *&, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' Ga< U- xG`x<$ 7n a si2ilar way, we acan pro!e that V*1, *2, *-, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' Ga< U- x<`xG$ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /a0$ "ase (b)$ 1e will first pro!e that V*1, *2, *&, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' Ga< U- xG`x<$ /10 ( B 5 C )( C 5 B ) Ga< 3 hypothesis$

10. /20 xG /&0 G`< /-0 U- <`x< /.0 G`x< /,0 x/G`x<0 /=0 U- x/G`x<0`/xG`x<0 /C0 x< Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by 6xio2 *&$ 6xio2 *1&$ 9ro2 /&0 and /-0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$ Gy Aen$ 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ 9ro2 /=0, /,0 and /20, by 5#$

Thus, we ha!e pro!ed that V* 1, *2, *&, *1&, *1., 5#, AenW' Ga<, xG U- x<$ %ince Aen has been applied only to x, which is not a free !ariable in xG, then, by eduction Theore2 2 V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1, *2, *&, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' Ga< U- xG`x<$ 7n a si2ilar way, we can pro!e that V*1, *2, *-, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' Ga< U- x<`xG$ ?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /b0$ D$@$ $ %e$lacement ;heorem 0. *et us consider three for2ulas' G, GB, <, where G is a sub-for2ula of <, and o/G0 is any occurrence of G in <$ *et us denote by <B the for2ula obtained fro2 < by replacing o/G0 by GB $ Then, in the 2ini2al logic, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' GaGB U- <a<B$ Proo!$ 7nduction by the SdepthS of the occurrence o/G0$ Induction base? depth ^ 0$ Then < is G, and <B is GB$ The conclusion is ob!ious$ Induction ste$. 7f < is not G, then one of the following holds' a0-g0 3 as in the proof of (eplace2ent Theore2 1$ h0 < is x9, and o/G0 is in 9$ i0 < is x9, and o/G0 is in 9$

10, "ase (h). Gy induction assu2ption, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' GaGB U9a9B$ Gy (eplace2ent *e22a 2/a0, V* 1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' 9a9B Ux9ax9B$ Thus, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' GaGB U- <a<B$ "ase (i). Gy induction assu2ption, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' GaGB U- 9a9B$ Gy (eplace2ent *e22a 2/b0, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' 9a9B U- x9ax9B$ Thus, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' GaGB U- <a<B$ D$@$ $ 6o: (only no:8) , :e may use in our $roo!s the re$lacement argument mentioned at the beginning o! this section. 5nd no:, !or any e@uivalent subD!ormulas8 9inally, let us pro!e that the 2eaning of a for2ula does not depend on the na2es of bound !ariables used in it$ 7ntuiti!ely, it S2ust be soS, but now we can pro!e this intuition as a 2eta-theore2$ %e$lacement Lemma +. 7f the for2ula G does not contain the !ariable y, then /in the 2ini2al logic0' a0 V*., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- xG/x0ayG/y0 b0 V*., *1&, *1., 5#, AenW' U- xG/x0ayG/y0$ 9irst, let us pro!e V*12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- xG/x0`yG/y0$ /10 U- xG/x0`G/y0 /20 U-y/xG/x0`G/y00 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/t0$ G/x0 does not contain y, hence, G/xPy0 is an ad2issible substitution$ Gy Aen$

6xio2 *1-' U/&0 y/xG/x0`G/y00`/xG/x0` x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$ yG/y00 xG/x0 does not contain y$ /-0 U- xG/x0`yG/y0 Gy 5#$ ?ow, let us pro!e V*12, *1-, 5#, Aen/x0W' U- yG/y0`xG/x0$ /10 U- yG/y0`G/x0 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/t0$ G/x0 does not contain y, hence, G/y0 contains only free occurrences of y, i$e$ G/yPx0 is an ad2issible substitution$

10= /20 U- x/yG/y0`G/x00 Gy Aen$

6xio2 *1-' U/&0 x/yG/y0`G/x00`/yG/y0` x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$ yG/y0 does not contain x as a free xG/x00 !ariable$ /-0 U- yG/y0`xG/x0 Gy 5#$

?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /a0$ To pro!e /b0, first, let us pro!e V*1&, *1., 5#, Aen/y0W' U- yG/y0`xG/x0$ /10 U- G/y0`xG/x0 /20 U-y/G/y0`xG/x00 6xio2 *1&' 9/t0`x9/t0$ G/x0 does not contain y, hence, G/xPy0 is an ad2issible substitution$ Gy Aen$

6xio2 *1.' U/&0 y/G/y0`xG/x00`/yG/y0` x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ xG/x0 xG/x00 does not contain y$ /-0 U- yG/y0`xG/x0 Gy 5#$ ?ow, let us pro!e V*1&, *1., 5#, Aen/x0W' U- xG/x0`yG/y0$ /10 U- G/x0`yG/y0 /20 U- x/G/x0`yG/y00 6xio2 *1&' 9/t0`x9/x0$ G/x0 does not contain y, hence, G/y0 contains only free occurrences of y, i$e$ G/yPx0 is an ad2issible substitution$ Gy Aen$

6xio2 *1.' U/&0 x/G/x0`yG/y00`/xG/x0` x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ yG/y0 yG/y00 does not contain x as a free !ariable$ /-0 U- xG/x0`yG/y0 D$@$ $ %e$lacement ;heorem +. *et y be a !ariable that does not occur in a for2ula 9, containing an occurrence of a Quantifier x /or x0$ *et us replace by y all Gy 5#$

?ow, by Theore2 2$2$1/a0, we obtain /b0$

10C occurrences of the !ariable x bound by this particular Quantifier occurrence$ *et us denote the resulting for2ula by 9B$ Then, in the 2ini2al logic, V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- 9a9B$ Proo!. Thus, the for2ula 9 contains a sub-for2ula xG/x0 /or xG/x00, and we wish to replace it by y/G/y0 /or yG/y00, where y does not occur in 9$ Gy (eplace2ent *e22a &, in the 2ini2al logic, U- xG/x0ayG/y0, and UxG/x0ayG/y0$ Hence, by (eplace2ent *e22a 2, in the 2ini2al logic, U9a9B$ D$@$ $ ?ow let us repeat our exa2ple$ 1e know that /in the classical logic0' U- ( A 5 B ) 6 7 A B $ Hence, the for2ula /J`K0`L is eQui!alent to 7 ( X 5 E ) F , and to 7 ( 7 X E ) F $ 1e know also that 7 ( A B ) 6 7 A7 B , hence, we can continue' /J`K0`L is eQui!alent to ( 77 X 7 E ) F , and to ( X 7E ) F /since U-ff6a60$ ?ow, in our logic, we can use this !ery natural kind of 2athe2atical argu2ent$

+./. "onstructive #mbedding

Ali!enkoBs Theore2 /see %ection 2$=0 pro!ides a si2ple Sconstructi!e e2beddingS for the classical propositional logic' any classically pro!able for2ula can be Spro!edS in the constructi!e logic, if you put two negations before it$ This theore2 does not hold for the predicate logic$ 9or exa2ple /see %ection &$20, 77-.$ 7n the classical logic, V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fxfG`xG$ The double negation of this for2ula, i$e$ the for2ula ff/fxfG`xG0 cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e predicate logic /see %ection -$.0$ Thus, instead of the si2ple operation ff9, we 2ust search for a 2ore co2plicated e2bedding operation$ Howe!er, #9ercise +./.I /for s2art students0$ Verify that a for2ula 9 is pro!able in the classical predicate logic, if and only if ff9 is pro!able in the constructi!e predicate logic plus the following axio2 sche2a' xffG`ffxG /the socalled ,o$b%e "egation Shift sche2a, see 7ntuitionistic *ogic by Hoan 5oscho!akis in %tanford @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy$ The first e2bedding operation was introduced by 6ndrey ?ikolae!ich "ol2ogoro! /1+0&-1+C=0 in

10+ 5.6.Kolmogorov$ Rn the principle tertiu2 non datur$ .atem( sborni&, 1+2., !ol$&2, pp$,-,-,,= /in (ussian0$ 6 Quote fro2 6 %hort Giography of 6$?$ "ol2ogoro! by #aul 5$G$ Vitanyi follows' S"$ got interested in 2athe2atical logic, and in 1+2. published a paper in 5athe2aticheskii %bornik on the law of the excluded 2iddle, which has been a continuous source for later work in 2athe2atical logic$ This was the first %o!iet publication on 2athe2atical logic containing /!ery substantial0 new results, and the first syste2atic research in the world on intuitionistic logic$ "$ anticipated to a large extent 6$ Heyting Bs for2ali:ation of intuitionistic reasoning, and 2ade a 2ore definite correlation between classical and intuitionistic 2athe2atics$ "$ defined an operation for ke2beddingB one logical theory in another$ )sing this 3 historically the first such operation, now called the k"ol2ogoro! operationB 3 to e2bed classical logic in intuitionistic logic, he pro!ed that application of the law of the excluded 2iddle in itself cannot lead to a contradiction$ 7n 1+&2 "$ published a second paper on intuitionistic logic, in which for the first ti2e a se2antics was proposed /for this logic0, free fro2 the philosophical ai2s of intuitionis2$ This paper 2ade it possible to treat intuitionistic logic as constructi!e logic$S %ee also "ol2ogoro! <entennial$ 1e will in!estigate the following !ersion of an e2bedding operation' to obtain R/90, in a for2ula 9, put two negations before' a0 e!ery ato2ic for2ula, b0 e!ery dis>unction, c0 e!ery existential Quantifier$ 5ore precisely, let us define the following e2bedding operation R /you 2ay wish to co2pare it with so2e other !ersions possessing si2ilar properties0' A$eration A etlo!s V1+,-W
7f 9 is an ato2ic for2ula, then R/90 is ff9$ R/9`A0 is R/90`R/A0$
* ( F G ) is * ( F ) * (G ) $ * ( F G ) is 77 (* ( F )* ( G))

A$eration K "ol2ogoro! V1+2.W

"/90 is ff9$

A$eration AJ A$eration Ao AFdel V1+&&W, Aent:en V1+&,W, see "leene V1+.2W see "leene V1+.2W
RB/90 is 9$ Ro/90 is 9$

ff/"/90`"/A00
77 ( C ( F ) C ( G ))

7 (* G ( F ) 7* G ( G)) * G ( F ) * G ( G )

Ro/90`Ro/A0
* o ( F )* o ( G)

77 ( C ( F ) C ( G ))

7 (7* G ( F ) 7* G ( G ))

7 (7*o ( F ) 7*o ( G ))

110
R/f90 is fR/90$ R/x90 is xR/90$ fff"/90, or f"/90] fRB/90 ffx"/90 xRB/90 fxfRB/90 fRo/90 xRo/90 fxfRo/90

R/x90 is ffxR/90$ ffx"/90

/]0 Gy Theore2 2$-$., V*1-*+, 5#W' U- fff"/90af"/90$ 9or exa2ple, let us take the abo!e for2ula fxfG`xG$ 7f G is an ato2ic for2ula, then R/fxfG`xG0 is fxfffG`ffxffG, i$e$ fxfG`ffxffG The latter for2ula is constructi!ely pro!able /see %ection &$2, Aroup 770$ Lemma +./.)$ 9or any for2ula 9, in the classical logic, U- 9aR/90$ Proo!. Gy induction$ *et us recall Theore2 2$,$1' V*1-*11, 5#W U- ff6 a 6$ ). Induction base' 9 is an ato2ic for2ula$ Then R/90 is ff9$ Gy Theore2 2$,$1, V*1-*11, 5#W U- ff9a9, hence, in the classical logic, U- R/90a9$ 0. Induction ste$. "ase 0a? 9 is G!<$ Then R/90 is ff/R/G0!R/<00$ /10 R/G0aG /20 R/<0a< /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 BC 6 * ( B )C * ( B )C 6 * ( B)* ( C ) * ( B )* ( C ) 6 77 ( * ( B )* ( C )) BC 6 77 (* ( B )* ( C )) , i$e$ 9aR/90 7nduction assu2ption$ 7nduction assu2ption$ 9ro2 /10, by (eplace2ent Theore2 1$ 9ro2 /20, by (eplace2ent Theore2 1$ Theore2 2$,$1' V*1-*11, 5#W Uff6 a 6$ Gy transiti!ity of i2plication$

"ase 0b? 9 is xG$ Then R/90 is ffxR/G0$ /10 R/G0aG /20 xGaxR/G0 7nduction assu2ption$ 9ro2 /10, by (eplace2ent Theore2 2$

111 /&0 xR/G0affxR/G0 Theore2 2$,$1' V*1-*11, 5#W U- ff6 a 6$

/-0 xGaffxR/G0, i$e$ 9aR/90 Gy transiti!ity of i2plication$ "ase 0c? 9 is G`<$ "ase 0d? 9 is GI<$ "ase 0e? 9 is fG$ "ase 0!? 9 is xG$ #9ercise +./.)$#ro!e /c, d, e, f0$ D$@$ $ %till, the key feature of the for2ulas ha!ing the for2 R/90 is gi!en in Lemma +./.0$ 9or any for2ula 9, there is a proof of V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#,AenW' U- ffR/90aR/90$ 7$e$, in the 2ini2al logic, we 2ay drop the double negation before R/90 /before an arbitrary for2ula, we can do this only in the classical logic0$ 6ote. 7n so2e other textbooks, if ffAaA can be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic, then A is called a stable !ormula$ Thus, the e2bedding R/90 is a stable for2ula for any 9$ Proo!. Gy Theore2 2$-$-, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ Thus, it re2ains to pro!e U- ffR/90`R/90$ *et us proceed by induction$ ). Induction base' 9 is an ato2ic for2ula$ Then R/90 is ff9, and ffR/90`R/90 is ffff9`ff9$ *et us recall Theore2 2$-$.' V* 1-*+, 5#W Ufff6af6$ Hence, by taking 6 ^ f9' V*1-*+, 5#W U- ffff9`ff9, i$e$ V*1-*+, 5#W U- ffR/90`R/90$ 0. Induction ste$. "ase 0a' 9 is BC , or xG, or fG$ Then R/90 is 77 ( * ( B)* ( C )) , or ffxR/G0, or fR/G0$ Hence, ffR/90`R/90 is fffA`fA, where A is 7 ( * ( B )* ( C )) , or fxR/G0, or R/G0$ *et us recall Theore2 2$-$.' V*1*+, 5#W U- fff6af6$ Hence, V*1-*+, 5#W U- fffA`fA, i$e$ V*1-*+, 5#W U- ffR/90`R/90$ "ase 0b? 9 is G`<$ Then R/90 is R/G0`R/<0$ Gy induction assu2ption, V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- ffR/G0`R/G0, and U- ffR/<0`R/<0$

112 /10 ffR/<0`R/<0 /20 ff/R/G0`R/<00 /&0 ffR/G0`ffR/<0 /-0 R/G0`ffR/G0 /.0 R/G0`R/<0, i$e$ R/90 7nduction assu2ption$ ffR/90 3 hypothesis$ Gy Theore2 2$-$=/b0' V*1-*+, 5#W Uff/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0$ Gy Theore2 2$-$-, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ 9ro2 /-0, /&0 and /10, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

Hence, since Aen is not applied here at all, by eduction Theore2 1 V*1, *2, 5#W we obtain that V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- ffR/90`R/90$ "ase 0c? 9 is BC $ Then R/90 is * ( B )* ( C ) $ Gy induction assu2ption, V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- ffR/G0`R/G0, and U- ffR/<0`R/<0$ /10 /20 77 ( * ( B)* ( C )) 77* ( B )77 * ( C ) ffR/90 3 hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10, by Theore2 2$-$C/a0, V*1-*+, 5#W U- 77 ( A B ) 6 ( 77 A77 B ) $ 9ro2 /20, by 6xio2 *&$ 9ro2 /20, by 6xio2 *-$ 9ro2 /&0, by induction assu2ption$ 9ro2 /-0, by induction assu2ption$ 9ro2 /.0 and /,0, by 6xio2 *.$

/&0 ffR/G0 /-0 ffR/<0 /.0 R/G0 /,0 R/<0 /=0 * ( B )* (C ) , i$e$ R/90

Hence, since Aen is not applied here at all, by eduction Theore2 1 V*1, *2, 5#W we obtain that V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- ffR/90`R/90$ "ase 0d? 9 is xG$ Then R/90 is xR/G0$ Gy induction assu2ption, V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- ffR/G0`R/G0$ 1e 2ust pro!e that UffxR/G0`xR/G0$

11& /10 ffxR/G0`xffR/G0 /20 U- ffR/G0`R/G0 /&0 U- x/ffR/G0`R/G00 /-0 U- xffR/G0`xR/G0 /.0 U- ffxR/G0`xR/G0 D$@$ $ Lemma +./.+$ 7f 9 is one of the /classical0 axio2s *1-*11, *12-*1., then, in the constructi!e logic, V*1-*10, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- R/90$ 6ote. The axio2 *10 will be used in the proof of *e22a &$.$& only once 3 to pro!e that R/*100 is pro!able in the constructi!e logic$ Gut, of course, R/*100 cannot be pro!ed in the 2ini2al logic, hence, in the *e22a &$.$&, the constructi!e logic cannot be replaced by the 2ini2al one$ Proo!. "ase ). 9 /as an axio2 sche2a0 does not contain dis>unctions and existential Quantifiers, i$e$ if 9 is *1, *2, *&, *-, *., *+, *10, *12, or *1-$, then R/90 is an instance of the sa2e axio2 as 9, i$e$ V9W' U- R/90$ 9or exa2ple, if 9 is * 1, i$e$ G`/<`G0, then R/90 is R/G0`/R/<0`R/G00, i$e$ R/90 is an instance of the sa2e axio2 *1$ "ase 0a$ 9 is *,' B 5 BC $ Then R/90 is * ( B ) 5 77 ( * ( B )* ( C )) , and VV*1, *2, *,, *+, 5#W U- R/90$ 7ndeed' /10 /20 /&0 * ( B ) 5 * ( B )* ( C ) 6xio2 *,$ %ection &$2, 7-2' V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- ffxG`xffG 7nduction assu2ption Gy Aen$ 9ro2 /&0, by Theore2 &$1$1/a0, V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0$ 9ro2 /10 and /-0, by transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

Gy Theore2 2$-$-, V*1, *2, *+, * ( B )* ( C ) 5 77 ( * ( B )* ( C )) 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ * ( B ) 5 77 ( * ( B )* ( C )) Gy transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

"ase 0b$ 9 is *=' C 5 BC $ Then R/90 is * ( C ) 57 7( * ( B )* ( C )) ,

11and VV*1, *2, *=, *+, 5#W U- R/90$ #roof is si2ilar to <ase 2a$ "ase 0c. 9 is *C' ( B 5 , ) 5 (( C 5 , ) 5 ( B C 5 ,)) $ Then R/90 is ( * ( B ) 5 * ( , )) 5 (( * ( C ) 5 * ( , )) 5 ( 77 ( * ( B )* (C )) 5* ( , ))) $ /10 ffR/ 0`R/ 0 /20 R/G0`R/ 0 /&0 /R/<0`R/ 0 /-0 77 ( * ( B)* ( C )) Gy *e22a &$.$2, V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#,AenW' U- ffR/90`R/90$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

( * ( B ) 5 * ( , )) 5 (( * ( C ) 5* ( , )) 5 ( * ( B )* ( C ) 5* ( , ))) $ /.0 6xio2 * $ C /,0 /=0

* ( B ) '* ( C ) 5 * ( , )

Gy 5#$

9ro2 /,0, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0, 77 ( * ( B)* ( C )) 5 77* ( , ) V*1-*+, 5#W U/6`G0`/ff6`ffG0 Gy 5#$ 9ro2 /10, by 5#$

/C0 ffR/ 0 /+0 R/ 0

Hence, since Aen is not applied after hypotheses appear in the proof, by eduction Theore2 26 V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#,AenW U- R/90$ "ase 0d. 9 is *11' G!fG$ Then R/90 is 77 ( * ( B)7* ( B)) $ *et us recall Theore2 2$-$,/b0' V*1-*+, 5#W U- 77 ( A7 A) $ Hence, V*1-*+, 5#W UR/90$ "ase 0e. 9 is *1&' 9/t0`x9/x0$ Then R/90 is R/9/t00`ffxR/9/x000, and VV*1, *2, *+, *1&, 5#W U- R/90$ 7ndeed' /10 R/9/t00`xR/9/x00 /20 xR/9/x00`ffxR/9/x00 6xio2 *1&$ Gy Theore2 2$-$-, V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U6`ff6$

11. /&0 U- R/9/t00`ffxR/9/x00 Gy transiti!ity of i2plication V*1, *2, 5#W$

"ase 0!. 9 is *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ Then R/90 is x/R/9/x00`R/A00`/ffxR/9/x00`R/A00$ /10 ffR/A0`R/A0 /20 x/R/9/x00`R/A00 /&0 ffxR/9/x00 /-0 Gy *e22a &$.$2, V*1-*+, *12, *1-, 5#,AenW' U- ffR/90`R/90$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$

x/R/9/x00`R/A00` /xR/9/x00`R/A00$ 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0$ Gy 5#$ 9ro2 /-0, by Theore2 2$-$=/a0, V*1-*+, 5#W U- /6`G0`/ff6`ffG0 Gy 5#$ 9ro2 /10, by 5#$

/.0 xR/9/x00`R/A0 /,0 ffxR/9/x00`ffR/A0 /=0 ffR/A0 /C0 R/A0

Hence, since Aen is not applied after hypotheses appear in the proof, by eduction Theore2 26 V*1, *2, *1-, 5#, AenW we obtain that V*1-*+, *12, *1-, *1., 5#,AenW U- R/90$ D$@$ $ ;heorem +./.,$ 7n the classical logic, V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' G1, G2, $$$, Gn U- <, if and only if, in the constructi!e logic, V*1-*10, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- R/<0$ 7n particular, a for2ula 9 is pro!able in the classical logic, if and only if the for2ula R/90 is pro!able in the constructi!e logic$ Proo!. 1$ *et V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' G1, G2, $$$, Gn U- <$ 7nduction by the length of the shortest proof$

11, Induction base. 7f < is an axio2, then, by *e22a &$.$&, in the constructi!e logic, U- R/<0$ 7f < is Gi, then R/Gi0 U- R/<0 in any logic$ Induction ste$. 7f < is deri!ed by 5# fro2 G and G`<, then, by induction assu2ption, in the constructi!e logic' R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- R/G0, and R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- R/G`<0$ *et us 2erge these two proofs$ %ince R/G`<0 is R/G0`R/<0, then, by 5#, in the constructi!e logic' R/G 10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 UR/<0$ 7f < is xG/x0, and is deri!ed by Aen fro2 G/x0, then, by induction assu2ption, in the constructi!e logic' R/G 10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- R/G/x00$ Hence, by Aen, in the constructi!e logic' R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 UxR/G/x00, i$e$ R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0U- R/90$ D$@$ $ 2$ *et in the constructi!e logic' U- R/G 10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- R/<0$ Gy *e22a &$.$1, in the classical logic, U- Gi`R/Gi0 for all i, and U- R/<0`<$ Hence, in the classical logic, G1, G2, $$$, Gn U- <$ D$@$ $ "orollary +././. 7f, in the classical logic, G1, G2, $$$, Gn U- C 7C , then, in the constructi!e logic, R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 U- * ( C )7* ( C ) $ 7$e$, if the postulates G1, G2, $$$, Gn are inconsistent in the classical logic, then the postulates R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 are inconsistent in the constructi!e logic$ Rr' if the postulates R/G10, R/G20, $$$, R/Gn0 are consistent in the constructi!e logic, then the postulates G1, G2, $$$, Gn are consistent in the classical logic$ "orollary +./.1. 7f, for so2e predicate language, the classical logic is inconsistent, then so is the constructi!e logic$ Rr' i!, !or some $redicate language, the constructive logic is consistent, then so is the classical logic /AFdel V1+&&W, Aent:en V1+&,W0$ 3arning8 <orollary &$.$, does not extend i22ediately to first order theories, ha!ing their own specific non-logical axio2s$ 7t 2ust be !erified separately for each theory; 9or exa2ple, #9ercise +./.0 /for s2art students0$ Verify that, if the constructi!e first order arith2etic is consistent, then so is the classical first order arith2etic /AFdel V1+&&W, Aent:en V1+&,W0$ /Hint' !erify that, a0 ato2ic for2ulas of arith2etic are stable 3 this is the hard part of the proof, b0 if 9 is an axio2 of arith2etic,

11= then so is R/90$0 Thus, the nonDconstructivity does not add contradictions (at least) to arithmetic$ 7f it would, then we could deri!e Sconstructi!eS arith2etical contradictions as well$ K. 7Mdel$ Lur intuitionistischen 6rith2etik und Lahlentheorie$ Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Co%%o4$i$ms, 1+&&, Vol$ -, pp$ &--&C$ 7erhard 7ent=en$ ie 1iderspruchsfreiheit der reinen Lahlentheorie$ .athematische Anna%en, 1+&,, Vol$ 112, pp$ -+&-.,.$ 6bout constructi!e e2bedding operations as a general notion see 6ikolai 5..hanin$ @2bedding the classical logical-arith2etical calculus into the constructi!e logical-arith2etical calculus$ ,o&%a+i A" SSS), 1+.-, !ol$ +-, ?2, pp$1+&-1+, /in (ussian0$

11C

,. "om$leteness ;heorems (Model ;heory)

,.). Inter$retations and Models
7n principle, to do the so-called pure 2athe2atics, i$e$ si2ply to pro!e theore2s, one needs only >synta9> E axio2s and rules of inference$ 6nd, for com$uters, this is the only way of doing 2athe2atics; Gut how about >semantics> E about our intended S!isionN fro2 which we started designing our predicate language and for2ulating axio2s8 9irst of all, we 2ust understand that there is no way of for2ulating /in the predicate language and axio2s0 of a%% the feat$res of our do2ain of interest$ 9or exa2ple, what infor2ation can be deri!ed about the person Britney fro2 our Mtheory for peopleN of %ection 1$&8 6ll we can deri!e will be for2ulated in ter2s of the following predicates'
5ale/x0 E 2eans Sx is a 2aleS4 9e2ale/x0 E 2eans Sx is a fe2aleS4 5other/x, y0 E 2eans Sx is 2other of yS4 9ather/x, y0 E 2eans Sx is father of yS4 5arried/x, y0 E 2eans Sx and y are 2arriedS4 x^y$

Thus, there is no way of obtaining fro2 such a theory of any infor2ation that canBt be for2ulated in these ter2s, for exa2ple, about the age, colour of eyes etc$ 6nd thus, by co22unicating our predicate language and our axio2s to a co2puter, we ha!e co22unicated only a s2all part of all the features of our do2ain of interest$ &ence, neither our $redicate language, nor our a9ioms can s$eci!y our initial OvisionP com$letely. 5nd, i! so E in $rinci$le, one can imagine many different OvisionsP behind our ne: language and a9ioms8 7t 2ay see2 that if, instead of our MpeopleBs do2ainN that is !ery rich in details, we will consider, for exa2ple, natural nu2bers, then the situation will beco2e better, and we will be able to describe our infor2al M!isionN una2biguously8 9or exa2ple, let us considered the language of first order arith2etic /language pri2iti!es' x, y, $$$, 0, 1 \, ], ^0, and the following non-usual SGoolean !isionS G behind it$

11+ a0 6s the do2ain of G /the StargetS set of ob>ects0, instead of the set of all natural nu2bers, let us consider the set of SGoolean !aluesS G ^ Xt, fY$ Thus, now, the !ariables x, y, $$$ can take only !alues t, f$ b0 The interpretation 2apping intG assigns' to the ob>ect constant 1 3 the ob>ect t, to the ob>ect constant 0 3 the ob>ect t, thus' intG/00^f, intG/10^t$ c0 To the function constant S\S we assign the well-known +isA$nction truth table' intG/\0^ G G , to the function constant S]S 3 the well-known conA$nction truth table' intG/]0^ G G $ d0 To the predicate constant S^S 3 the eQuality predicate for the set intG/^0 ^ X/t, t0 , /f, f0Y$
G,

i$e$

7s this !ision SworseS than the usual one in!ol!ing MrealN natural nu2bers8 7t see2s, it is worse, because the following axio2 of arith2etic' x\1^y\1 ` x^y is false under this !ision$ 7ndeed, set x^0 and y^1' 0\1^1\1 ` 0^1$ Here, the pre2ise is true' 0 +1= f t =t =1, 1+1 =t t =t =1 , but the conclusion is not' 0^1 2eans f^t$ Rn the other hand, the following theore2 of Goolean algebra' x\x^x is true under the abo!e SGoolean !isionS / t t =t , f f = f 0, but it is false under the usual !ision in!ol!ing natural nu2bers$ Thus, if two theories share the sa2e language /as do Goolean algebra and first order arith2etic0, then the S!alidityS of a !ision 2ay depend on the for2ulas /axio2s and theore2s0 that we are expecting to be true$ 7f we consider only a language, then 2any different and e!en strange interpretations-!isions will be possible$ Gut if we consider a theory /i$e$ a language plus so2e specific axio2s0, then only a part of the interpretations-!isions will be !alid 3 only those ones, under which the specific axio2s of our theory will be true$ %uch interpretations-!isions are called models of the theory$
5nother e9am$le' in our Slanguage for peopleS we used na2es of people / /Britney, /ohn, Paris, Peter, (((0 as ob>ect constants and the following predicate constants' 5ale/x0 E 2eans Sx is a 2aleS4 9e2ale/x0 E 2eans Sx is a fe2aleS4 5other/x, y0 E 2eans Sx is 2other of yS4 9ather/x, y0 E 2eans Sx is father of yS4 5arried/x, y0 E 2eans Sx and y are 2arriedS4 x^y E 2eans Sx an y are the sa2e personS$

120
?ow, let us fix the list of - na2es' Britney, /ohn, Paris, Peter, and let us consider the following interpretation H of the language' a0 The do2ain 3 and the range of !ariables 3 is H ^ Xbr, >o, pa, peY /- character strings0$ b0 intH/Gritney0^br, intH/Hohn0^>o, intH/#aris0^pa, intH/#eter0^pe$ c0 intH/5ale0 ^ X>o, peY4 intH/9e2ale0 ^ Xbr, paY$ d0 intH/5other0 ^ X/pa, br0, /pa, >o0Y4 intH/9ather0 ^ X/pe, >o0, /pe, br0Y$ e0 intH/5arried0 ^ X/pa, pe0, /pe, pa0Y$ f0 d0 intH/^0 ^ X/br, br0, />o, >o0, /pa, pa0, /pe, pe0Y$ )nder this interpretation, Min this s2all worldN, it is true that, S2others are fe2alesS, and that Sall fathers are 2arried peopleS /under this interpretation, not in the real world;0$ Thus, under this interpretation, the corresponding for2ulas x/5other/x0`9e2ale/x00 and x/9ather/x0`y 5arried/x, y00 are Qualified as true$ Gut, under this interpretation, Min this s2all worldN, it not true that Seach person possess a 2otherS$ The corresponding for2ula xy 5other/y, x0 is Qualified as false$ #9ercise ,.).I. Guild another interpretation /a Mcra:yN one;0 of our M- people languageN, under which the following for2ulas are true' Mso2e people are both 2ale and fe2aleN, Mthere are sex-less peopleN, Ma person 2ay 2arry herselfN, Ma person 2ay be 2other of herselfN$ Gy introducing s$eci!ic nonDlogical a9ioms, i$e$ by introducing M- people theoryN instead of pure axio2-less M- people languageN we can disQualify this Mcra:yN interpretation$ 9or exa2ple, the following axio2s are false under it'
x ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) ? x 7 ( .a%e ( x ) Fema%e ( x )) $

Model ;heory <ould the notion of Marbitrary !isionN be defined precisely8 9or a particular predicate language and particular axio2s 3 is there only one M!isionN possible8 Trying to answer these Questions, we arri!e at the so-called 2odel theory$ Model theory is a !ery specific approach to in!estigation of for2al theories$ 5odel theory is using /up to0 the full power of set theory$ In model theory, :e investigate !ormal theories by using set theory as a metaDtheory.
Paul 'ernays, in 1+.C' S6s Gernays re2arks, syntax is a branch of nu2ber theory and se2antics the one of set theory$S %ee p$ -=0 of &ao 3ang$ @7AHTK K@6(% R9 9R)? 6T7R?6* %T) 7@%$ ,ia%ectica, Vol$ 12, 7ssue &-, pp$ -,,--+=, ece2ber 1+.C /a!ailable online at Glackwell %ynergy0$

7n %ections -$1--$& we will de!elop model theory !or the classical logic , and in %ections -$---$. 3 2odel theory for the constructi!e logic$ 7n the classical 2odel theory, we will replace our !ague S!isionsN by relati!ely well-defined 2athe2atical structures 3 the so-called inter$retations$ 6s we will see, interpretations are allowed to be non-constructi!e$

121 Technically, an interpretation will be a relati!ely well-defined way of assigning Sprecise 2eaningsS to all for2ulas of a predicate language$ 6ny particular predicate language allows 2ultiple ways of assigning Sprecise 2eaningsS to its for2ulas 3 m$%tip%e interpretations$ Inter$retation o! a language E the s$eci!ic $art *et * be a predicate language containing ob>ect constants c1, $$$, ck, $$$ , function constants f1, $$$, f2, $$$, and predicate constants p1, $$$, pn, $$$$ 6n interpretation H of the language * consists of the following two entities' a0 6 nonDem$ty set H 3 the do2ain of interpretation /it will ser!e first of all as the range of ob>ect !ariables0$ /Kour fa!orite set theory co2es in here$0 b0 6 2apping intH that assigns' - to each ob>ect constant ci 3 a 2e2ber intH/ci0 of the do2ain constants SdenoteS particular ob>ects in H0, - to each function constant fi 3 a function intH/fi0 fro2 course, intH/fi0 has the sa2e nu2ber of argu2ents as fi0,
Hx H

/thus, ob>ect
H into

$$$ x

/of

- to each predicate constant pi 3 a predicate intH/pi0 on H, i$e$ a subset of x $$$ x H /of course, intH/pi0 has the sa2e nu2ber of argu2ents as pi0$

Thus, in a sense, the 2apping intH assigns S2eaningS to the language pri2iti!es$ The 2ost popular exa2ple 3 let us consider the so-called standard inter$retation % of first order /#eano0 arith2etic #6' a0 The do2ain is % ^ X0, 1, 2, $$$Y E the set of all natural nu2bers Sas we know itS /2ore precisely 3 as you define it in your fa!orite set theory0$ b0 The 2apping int% assigns' to the ob>ect constant 0 3 the nu2ber 0, to the ob>ect constant 1 3 the nu2ber 1, to the function constant S\S E the function x\y /addition of natural nu2bers0, to the function constant S]S E the function x]y /2ultiplication of natural nu2bers0, to the predicate constant S^S E the predicate x^y /eQuality of natural nu2bers0$
Ket another interpretation H1 of the sa2e language' a0 The do2ain is e2pty string0$
H1

^ Xe, a, aa, aaa, $$$Y E the set of all strings built of the letter SaS /e is the

b0 The 2apping intH1 assigns' to the ob>ect constant 0 3 the e2pty string e, to the ob>ect

122
constant 1 3 the string SaS, to the function constant S\S E the concatenation function of strings, to the function constant S]S E y ti2es concatenation of x, to the predicate constant S^S E the string eQuality predicate$ Ket another interpretation H2 /there is no way to disQualify it as a for2ally correct interpretation of the language0' a0 The do2ain is
H2

^ XoY 3 a single ob>ect o$

b0 The 2apping intH2 assigns' to the ob>ect constant 0 3 the ob>ect o, to the ob>ect constant 1 3 the sa2e ob>ect o, to the function constant S\S E the only possible function f/o,o0^o, to the function constant S]S E the only possible function f/o,o0^o, to the predicate constant S^S E the predicate X/o, o0Y$

%o2e ti2e later, we will use specific non-logical a9ioms to disQualify /at least so2e of0 such SinadeQuateS interpretations$ Ha!ing an interpretation H of the language *, we can define the notion of true !ormulas /2ore precisely E the notion of for2ulas that are true under the inter$retation H0$ 6s the first step, terms of the language * are interpreted as 2e2bers of H or functions o!er H$ 7ndeed, ter2s are defined as ob>ect constants, or ob>ect !ariables, or their co2binations by 2eans of function constants$ The ter2 ci is interpreted as the 2e2ber intH/ci0 of H$ The !ariable xi is interpreted as the function Ji/xi0 ^ xi$ 6nd, if t ^ fi/t1, $$$, tQ0, then intH/t0 is defined as the function obtained by substituting of functions intH/t10, $$$, intH/tQ0 into the function intH/fi0$ 9or exa2ple /first order arith2etic0, the standard interpretation of the ter2 /1\10\1 is the nu2ber &, the interpretation of /x\y\10]/x\y\10 is the function /x\y\102$ Im$ortant Q nonDconstructivity8 ?ote that, for an infinite do2ain H, the interpretations of function constants 2ay be nonDcom$utable functions$ Gut, if they are all co2putable, then we can co2pute the S!alueS of any ter2 t for any co2bination of !alues of !ariables appearing in t$ 6s the next step, the notion of true atomic !ormulas is defined$ Rf course, if a for2ula contains !ariables /as, for exa2ple, the for2ula x\y^10, then its Struth-!alueS 2ust be defined for each co2bination of !alues of these !ariables$ Thus, to obtain the truth-!alue of the for2ula p i/t1, $$$, tQ0 for so2e fixed !alues of the !ariables contained in t1, $$, tQ, we 2ust first Sco2puteS the !alues of these ter2s, and then substitute these !alues into the predicate intH/pi0$

12& 9or exa2ple /first order arith2etic0, under the standard interpretation %, the for2ula x\y^1 will be true, if and only if either x takes the !alue 0, and y takes the !alue 1, or x takes the !alue 1, and y takes the !alue 0$ Rtherwise, the for2ula is false$ Im$ortant Q nonDconstructivity8 ?ote that, for an infinite do2ain H, the interpretations of predicate constants 2ay be nonDcom$utable predicates$ Gut, if they were all co2putable, then we could co2pute the Struth !alueS of any ato2ic for2ula 9 for any co2bination of !alues of !ariables appearing in 9$ Inter$retations o! languages Q the standard common $art 6nd finally, we define the notion of true com$ound !ormulas of the language * under the interpretation H /of course, for a fixed co2bination of !alues of their free !ariables0' a0 Truth-!alues of the for2ulas fG, BC , BC and G`< 2ust be co2puted fro2 the truth-!alues of G and < /by using the well-known classical truth tables 3 see %ection -$2 below0$ b0 The for2ula xG is true under H, if and only if G/c0 is true under H for all 2e2bers c of the do2ain H$ c0 The for2ula xG is true under H, if and only if there is a 2e2ber c of the do2ain H such that G/c0 is true under H$ 9or exa2ple /first order arith2etic0, the for2ula y (( x = y + y )( x = y + y +1)) says that Sx is e!en or oddS$ )nder the standard interpretation %, this for2ula is true for all !alues of its free !ariable x$ %i2ilarly, xy/x\y^y\x0 is a closed for2ula that is true under %$ Im$ortant Q nonDconstructivity8 7t 2ay see2 that, under an interpretation, any closed for2ula is Seither true or flaseS$ Howe!er, note that, for an infinite do2ain H, the notion of Strue for2ulas under HS is extre2ely nonD constructive' to establish, for exa2ple, the truth-!alue of the for2ula xG, or the for2ula xy/x\y^y\x0, we 2ust !erify the truth of G/c0 for infinitely 2any !alues of c /or a\b^b\a for infinitely 2any !alues of a and b0$ Rf, course, this !erification cannot be perfor2ed 100T on a co2puter$ 7t can only /so2eti2es0 be pro!ed$$$ in so2e other theory$ The Sdegree of constructi!ityS of the for2ulas like as xy</x,y0, xy: /x,y,:0 etc$ is e!en less than that$$$
#m$ty Domains4 o you think, we should consider also em$ty domains of interpretation8 6ccording to the

12axio2 *1&' /G`G0`x/G`G0, hence, x/G`G0$ 7n an e2pty do2ain, this for2ula would be false$ Thus, to co!er the e2pty do2ain, we would be forced to re-consider the axio2s andPor re-consider the traditional 2eaning of x E see /c0 abo!e$ *et us concentrate on non-e2pty do2ains only$

*et us say that a for2ula of the language * is al:ays true under the interpretation H, if and only if this for2ula is true for all co2binations of !alues of its free !ariables$ ;hree Kinds o! <ormulas 7f one explores so2e for2ula 9 of the language * in !arious interpretations, then three situations are possible' a0 9 is true in all interpretations of the language *$ 9or2ulas of this kind are called logically valid !ormulas$ b0 9 is true in some interpretations of *, and !alse Q in some other interpretations of *$ c0 9 is !alse in all interpretations of * /then, of course, f9 is true in all interpretations0$ 9or2ulas of this kind are called unsatis!iable !ormulas. 9or2ulas that are Snot unsatisfiableS /i$e$ for2ulas of kinds /a0 and /b00 are called, of course, satis!iable !ormulas$ #9ercise ,.).). Verify that' a0 < is satis!iable, i! and only i! R< is not logically valid$ b0 < is logically valid, i! and only i! R< is unsatis!iable$ Logically Valid <ormulas %o2e for2ulas are always true under all interpretations, for exa2ple' ( B 5 C )(C 5 , ) 5 ( B 5 ,) , F ( x ) 5 xF ( x ) , xF ( x ) 5 F ( x ) , x ( F ( x ) 5 G ( x )) 5 ( xF ( x ) 5 xG ( x )) , x ( F ( x ) 5 G ( x )) 5 ( xF ( x ) 5 xG ( x )) , x ( G ( x ) H ( x )) 5 ( xG ( x ) xH ( x )) ,

x ( G ( x ) H ( x ))5 ( xG ( x ) xH ( x )) $
%uch for2ulas are called logically valid$ 5ore precisely, in a predicate language *, a for2ula is called logically valid, if and only if it is true in all inter$retations of the language * for all !alues of its free !ariables$ Thus, a logically !alid for2ula is true independently of its S2eaningS E the

12. interpretations of constants, functions and predicates used in it$ Gut note that here, the /classical;0 inter$retations o! $ro$ositional connectives and @uanti!iers remain !i9ed. 7n a sense, logically !alid for2ulas are Mcontent-freeN' they do not gi!e us any specific infor2ation about features of ob>ects they are MspeakingN about$ Im$ortant Q nonDconstructivity8 The notion of logically !alid for2ulas is doubly nonDconstructive in the sense that the uni!ersal Quantifier Sfor all interpretationsS is added to the /already0 non-constructi!e definition of a true for2ula$ 6s we will see in, all the axio2s of our classical logical axio2 syste2 V* 1-*1., 5#, AenW are logically !alid for2ulas$ 6nd that inference rules 5# and Aen generate only logically !alid for2ulas$ 7$e$ we will pro!e that all the !ormulas that can be $roved in the classical logic (L )DL)/, MP, 7en-, are logically valid. 6s an exa2ple, let us !erify that the axio2 *12' x9/x0`9/t0 is logically !alid$ *et us assu2e the contrary, i$e$ that, under so2e interpretation H, for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, * 12 is false$ 6ccording to the classical truth tables, this could be only, if and only if x9/x0 were true, and 9/t0 were false /under the interpretation H, for the sa2e abo!e-2entioned !alues of free !ariables0$ *et us Sco2puteS the !alue of the ter2 t for these !alues of free !ariables /since the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible, t 2ay contain only these !ariables0, and denote it by c$ Thus, 9/c0 is false$ Gut x9/x0 is true, hence, 9/a0 is true for all a in the do2ain H, i$e$ 9/c0 also is true$ <ontradiction$ Hence, *12 is true under all interpretations for all co2binations of its free !ariables /if any0$ #9ercise ,.).0. Verify that the re2aining , of the abo!e for2ulas are logically !alid$ /Hint' follow the abo!e exa2ple E assu2e that there is an interpretation H such that the for2ula under Question is false for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, and deri!e a contradiction$0 Is our a9iom system o! logic $o:er!ul enough to $rove 5LL the logically valid !ormulas4 The answer is positi!e E see AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2 in %ection -$&' a for2ula is logically !alid, if and only of it is pro!able in the classical logic V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW$ Gut, of course, there are for2ulas that are not logically !alid$ 9or exa2ple, negations of logically !alid for2ulas are false in all interpretations, i$e$ they are not logically !alid$ %uch for2ulas are called unsatis!iable !ormulas$ Gut there are for2ulas that are true in so2e interpretations, and false E in so2e other ones$ 6n exa2ple of such for2ulas' the axio2 of arith2etic x\1^y\1 `

12, x^y considered abo!e$ To conclude that so2e for2ula is not logically !alid, we 2ust build an interpretation H such that the for2ula under Question is false for so2e !alues of its free !ariables$ 6s an exa2ple, let us !erify that the for2ula x ( p ( x ) 4 ( x )) 5 x p ( x ) x 4 ( x ) is not logically !alid /p, Q are predicate constants0$ 1hy it is not8 Gecause the truth-!alues of p/x0 and Q/x0 2ay beha!e in such a way that p ( x )4 ( x ) is always true, but neither x p/x0, nor x Q/x0 is true$ 7ndeed, let us take the do2ain ^ Xa, bY, and set' 9 a b $(9) true false @(9) false true

7n this interpretation, p ( a )4 ( a ) ^ true, p ( b ) 4 ( b ) ^ true, i$e$ the pre2ise x ( p ( x ) 4 ( x )) is true$ Gut the for2ulas x p/x0, x Q/x0 both are false$ Hence, in this interpretation, the conseQuent x p ( x ) x 4 ( x ) is false, and thus, x ( p ( x ) 4 ( x )) 5 x p ( x ) x 4 ( x ) is false$ 1e ha!e built an interpretation, 2aking false the for2ula under Question$ D$@$ $ Rn the other hand, this for2ula is satis!iable 3 there is an interpretation under which it is true$ 7ndeed, let us take ^XaY as the do2ain of interpretation, and let us set p/a0^Q/a0^true$ Then all the for2ulas x ( p ( x ) 4 ( x )) , x p ( x ) , x 4 ( x ) beco2e true, and so is the entire for2ula under consideration$ D$@$ $ #9ercise ,.).+. Verify that the following for2ulas are satisfiable, but not logically !alid /p, Q, r are predicate constants0' a0 p ( x , y ) p ( y , 3 ) 5 p ( x , 3 ) , b0 Q/x0`x Q/x0, c0 /x Q/x0`x r/x00`x/Q/x0`r/x00, c10 x/p/x0`G0`/x p/x0`G0, where G does not contain x, d0 xy p/x, y0`yx p/x, y0, e0 x 4 ( x ) x r ( x ) 5 x ( 4 ( x )r ( x )) , f0 x 7 p ( x , x ) x y 3 ( p ( x , y ) p ( y , 3 ) 5 p ( x , 3 )) ` x y ( x = y p ( x , y ) p ( y , x )) $

12= Hint$ 9or the do2ain ^Xa, bY, use table for2 to define your interpretation of a binary predicate letter r/x,y0, for exa2ple, 9 a a b b y a b a b r(9, y) false true true false

#9ercise ,.).,. 7s the following for2ula logically !alid, or not /p, Q are predicate constants0' /x p/x0`x Q/x00`x/p/x0`Q/x00$ /Hint' follow the abo!e exa2ple E use natural nu2bers or other ob>ects trying to build an interpretation H such that the for2ula under Question is false for so2e !alues of its free !ariables$0 .atis!iability 1e already know that, in a predicate language *, a for2ula 9 is called satis!iable, if and only if there is an inter$retation of the language * such that 9 is true for some !alues of its free !ariables /we will say also that 9 is satis!ied under this inter$retation0$ 6 set of for2ulas 91, $$$, 9n, $$$ is called satisfiable, if and only if there is an interpretation under which the for2ulas 91, $$$, 9n, $$$ are satisfied sim$%taneo$s%y$ #9am$les$ a0 9or2ula x p/x0 is, of course, not logically !alid, but it is satisfiable, because it is true in the following interpretation H' H^XbY, p/b0 is true$ b0 9or2ulas x]0^0, x\y^y\x and x\/y\:0^/x\y0\: are not logically !alid /see @xercise -$1$= below0, but they are satisfiable, because they are true under the standard intepretation of arith2etic$ #9ercise ,.)./. a0 Verify that the for2ula xy/p/x0`p/y00 is always true in all one-ele2ent interpretations /i$e$ when the interpretation do2ain consists of a single ele2ent0, but is false in at least one two-ele2ent interpretation /p is a predicate constant0$ b0 Verify that the for2ula

12C x y 3 [( p ( x ) 6 p ( y ))( 4 ( y ) 6 4 ( 3 ))( r ( 3 ) 6 r ( x ))] is always true in all one- and two-ele2ent interpretations, but is false in at least one three-ele2ent interpretation /p, Q, r are predicate constants0$ c0 #ro!e that the for2ula xy 9/x,y0 is logically !alid, if and only if so is the for2ula x 9/x, g/x00, where g is a function constant that does not appear in 9$ d0 #ro!e that the for2ula xy: 9/x,y,:0 is satisfiable, if and only if so is the for2ula xy 9/x, y, h/x,y00, where h is a function constant that does not appear in 9$ Logical "onse@uences S9 i2plies AS, or Sthe for2ula A follows fro2 the for2ula 9S E what should this 2ean in general8 7f 9 is true, then A is true8 6lways, or under so2e specific conditions8 *et us specify all these SconditionsS as for2ulas 61, $$$, 6n /the for2ula 9 included0$ Then, A follows fro2 6 1, $$$, 6n unconditionally /SlogicallyS0, i$e$ if 61, $$$, 6n are all true, then A 2ust be true without any other conditions$ %ince the notion of StrueS we ha!e for2ali:ed as Strue in interpretationS, we can for2ali:e the notion of Slogical conseQuenceS as follows' A is a logical conse@uence of 61, $$$, 6n, if and only if 7 is true under any inter$retation, under :hich 5), ..., 5n are all true$ Rr, as follows' A is a logical conse@uence of 61, $$$, 6n, if and only if 7 is true in any model o! 5), ..., 5n$ #9ercise ,.).1$ Verify that' a0 The for2ula A is a logical conseQuence of for2ulas 61, $$$, 6n, if and only if the for2ula A1$$$ An 5G is logically !alid$ b0 7f the set of for2ulas 61, $$$, 6n is satisfiable, then the for2ulas G, fG cannot both be logical conseQuences of 61, $$$, 6n$ c0 The for2ula A is a logical conseQuence of for2ulas 6 1, $$$, 6n, if and only if the set 61, $$$, 6n, fA is unsatisfiable$

12+ 1e will pro!e in %ection -$& that A is a logical conseQuence of 61, $$$, 6n, if and only if V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' A1$$$ An U- A, i$e$ if the for2ula A1$$$ An 5G is pro!able in the classical logic$ ;heories and ;heir Models 7f T is a first order theory, and H is an interpretation of its language, and if H 2akes true the specific axio2s of T, then /traditionally0 H is called a model o! T$ 9or non-2athe2atical people, the ter2 S2odel of a theoryS 2ay see2 so2ewhat strange' in Snor2alS branches of science, theories ser!e as a basis for building 2odels of natural pheno2ena, technical de!ices etc$ Gut only the ter2 is strange /Supside downS0 here, the process is the sa2e as in Snor2alS branches of science' first order theories SgenerateS their 2odels, and these 2odels can be used for 2odeling natural pheno2ena, technical de!ices etc$ .$eci!ic a9ioms o! a !irst order theory ; are not logically valid !ormulas8 They are not true in all interpretations, they are true only in the models of T$ 5odels of T E it is a $ro$er subclass of all the possible interpretations$ 9or exa2ple, the Sob!iousS arith2etical axio2s like as x\0^x /or, theore2s like as x\y^y\x0 are not logically !alid$ 7f we would interpret 0 as the nu2ber StwoS, then x\0 and x will be eQual; *ogically !alid for2ulas 2ust be true under all interpretations; #9ercise ,.).2. a0 Verify that, if a theory has a 2odel, then the set of its specific axio2s is satisfiable$ b0Verify that x^x, x]0^0, x\y^y\x and x\/y\:0^/x\y0\: are satisfiable, but not logically !alid for2ulas$ 6s we already noted abo!e, in a sense, logically valid !ormulas >do not contain in!ormation> /are Mcontent-freeN0 E >ust because they are true in all interpretations, i$e$ they are true independently of the S2eaningS of language pri2iti!es$ 7ndeed, let us consider the for2ulas x\0^x ` x\0^x, and x\0^0 ` x\0^0$ Goth are logically !alid, but do we get 2ore infor2ation about :ero and addition after reading the28 6nother exa2ple' 2]2^. ` 2]2^., or 2]2^` 2]2^-, these for2ulas also are logically !alid, but do they help in co2puting the !alue of 2]28 The specific axio2s of so2e theory T, on the contrary, do Scontain infor2ationS E they separate a proper subclass of all interpretations E 2odels of T$ o the axio2s of first order arith2etic MspecifyN the standard interpretation %, i$e$ are the axio2s of first order arith2etic true in this inter$retation only4

1&0 ?o, there are 2any nonDstandard inter$retations 2aking these axio2s true; 5ore' ?on-standard arith2etic in 1ikipedia$ ;ransitive Predicates and %ecursion *et us return to the proble2 that we considered already in %ection 1$2$ How about the predicate 5ncestor(9, y) E Sx is an ancestor of yS8 <ould it be expressed as a for2ula of our Slanguage for peopleS8 The first idea E let us SdefineS this predicate recursi!ely' x y ( Father ( x , y ).other ( x , y ) 5 Ancestor ( x , y )) 4 x y 3 ( Ancestor ( x , y ) Ancestor ( y , 3 ) 5 Ancestor ( x , 3 )) $ The second rule declares the transiti!ity property of the predicate$ The abo!e two for2ulas are a9ioms, allowing to deri!e essential properties of the predicate 6ncestor/x, y0$ Gut how about a single for2ula 9/x, y0 in the Slanguage for peopleS, expressing that Sx is an ancestor of yS8 %uch a for2ula should be a tricky co2bination of for2ulas 9ather/x, y0, 5other/x, y0 and x^y$ 6nd such a for2ula is im$ossible; 9or the proof 3 see "arlos 5reces$ #h$ $ Thesis, 2000, Theore2 1$2$ #9ercise ,.).G /for s2art students0$ @xplain the precise 2eaning of the state2ent' in the Slanguage for peopleS, for2ula 9/x, y0 expresses that Sx is an ancestor of yS$

,.0. "lassical Pro$ositional Logic Q ;ruth ;ables

@2il *eon #ost /1C+=-1+.-0$ S$$$ #ostBs #h$ $ thesis, in which he pro!ed the co2pleteness and consistency of the propositional calculus described in the Principia .athematica by introducing the truth table 2ethod$ He then generalised his truth table 2ethod, which was based on the two !alues StrueS and SfalseS, to a 2ethod which had an arbitrary finite nu2ber of truth-!alues$$$ 7n the 1+20s #ost pro!ed results si2ilar to those which AFdel, <hurch and Turing disco!ered later, but he did not publish the2$ He reason he did not publish was because he felt that a Bco2plete analysisB was necessary to gain acceptance$S /6ccording to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ 9irst, let us consider the classical $ro$ositional logic$ Here, each for2ula is built of so2e is built of so2e Mato2sN G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only /i$e$ BC , BC , 7 B , B 5C 0$ Rur axio2s for this logic we represented as axio2 sche2as *1-*11, in which the letters G, <, could be replaced by any for2ulas$

1&1 7s our list *1-*11 of classical propositional axio2 sche2as Mco2pleteN8 6renBt so2e necessary axio2 sche2as 2issing there8 7f so2ething necessary is 2issing, we 2ust add it to the list$ This proble2 was sol!ed by @2il *$ #ost in 1+20$ He pro!ed that if one :ould add to L)DL)) as an a9iom schema any !ormula that canJt yet be $roved !rom these a9ioms, then one :ould obtain a system, in :hich all !ormulas are $rovable, i.e. an inconsistent system. Thus, nothing is 2issing in our list of classical propositional axio2s$ #ost pro!ed his theore2 by using the so-called classical truth tables /a specific interpetation 3 in ter2s of the abo!e %ection -$10$ @ach propositional ato2 2ay take any of two truth-!alues 3 tr$e and fa%se$ 6nd, if we already know the truth-!alues of the for2ulas G, <, then we can use truth tables to co2pute the truth-!alues of the for2ulas BC , BC , 7 B , B 5C $ 7f G is false, and < is false, then BC is false$ 7f G is false, and < is true, then BC is false$ 7f G is true, and < is false, then BC is false$ 7f G is true, and G is true, then BC is true$ ' " 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 7f G is false, and < is false, then BC is false$ 7f G is false, and < is true, then BC is true$ 7f G is true, and < is false, then BC is true$ 7f G is true, and < is true, then BC is true$ ' " 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7f G is false, then fG is true$ 7f G is true, then fG is false$ B C B C

1&2 ' R' 0 1 1 0 ?o proble2s so far$ 7f G is false, and < is false, then G`< is what8 True8 9alse8 Gut, why8 7f G is false, and < is true, then G`< is what8 True8 9alse8 Gut, why8 7f G is true, and < is false, then G`< is false, of course$ 7f G is true, and < is true, then G`< is what8 #erhaps, not false8 Hence, true8 How to answer the & whatBs8 7f G is false, then G`< possesses no real 2eaning$ 6nd, if we already know that G is true, and < is true, then G`< is no 2ore interesting$ Gut, if a definite Struth-!alueS for G`< is 2andatory in all cases, then we can great%y simp%ify the sit$ation by assu2ing that G`< is always true, except, if G is true, and < is false$ Thus' 7f G is false, and < is false, then G`< is true$ 7f G is false, and < is true, then G`< is true$ 7f G is true, and < is false, then G`< is false$ 7f G is true, and < is true, then G`< is true$ ' " 'F" 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 This definition is eQui!alent to saying that G`< is true, if and only if 7 ( B7 C ) is true or' G`< is false, if and only if G is true, and < is false$ 7n this way, ha!ing any for2ula 9 and so2e assign2ent of truth-!alues to its ato2s, we can co2pute the truth-!alue of 9$ Gut what would happen to so2e propositional for2ula 9, if we would try a%% the possib%e truth-!alues of all the propositional ato2s occurring in 98 There are three possibilities' 9 takes only true !alues4 9 takes only false !alues4

1&& 9 takes both of !alues$ Lemma ,.0.). )nder the classical truth tables, all the classical propositional axio2s *1-*11 take only true !alues$ Proo!. 9irst, let us !erify *11 and *10' ' R' 0 1 1 0 1 1
B B

' " R' 'F" R'F('F") 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

#9ercise ,.0.). Verify *1-*+$ %ee also' STruth TablesS fro2 The 1olfra2 e2onstrations #ro>ect$ <ontributed by' Hector Lenil$ Lemma ,.0.0. )nder the classical truth tables, if the for2ulas G and G`< take only true !alues, then so does <$ 7$e$ fro2 Salways trueS for2ulas, 5odus #onens allows deri!ing only of Salways trueS for2ulas$ Proo!. *et us assu2e that, in so2e situation, < takes a false !alue$ 7n the sa2e situation, G and G`< take true !alues$ 7f G is true, and < is false, then G`< is false$ <ontradiction$ Hence, < takes only true !alues$ D$@$ $ 6ote$ 7n the proof of *e22a -$2$2, only the third row of i2plication truth table was significant' if G is true, and < is false, then G`< is false; ;heorem ,.0.+ (soundness o! the classical $ro$ositional logic). 7f V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 9, then, under the classical truth tables, 9 takes only true !alues$ 7n particular' the classical propositional logic is consistent 3 in the sense that one cannot pro!e V*1-*11, 5#W' U- G7 G , for any for2ula A$ Proo!. Gy induction, fro2 *e22as -$2$1 and -$2$2$

1&"om$leteness o! "lassical Pro$ositional Logic How about the con!erse state2ent of Theore2 -$2$&' if, under the classical truth tables, for2ula 9 takes only true !alues, then V* 1-*11, 5#W' U- 98 7$e$, are our a9ioms $o:er!ul enough to $rove any !ormula that is taking only true values4 The answer is SyesS' ;heorem ,.0., (com$leteness o! the classical $ro$ositional logic). 6ssu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of for2ulas G 1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 7f, under the classical truth tables, for any truth-!alues of G 1, G2, $$$, Gn, for2ula 9 takes only true !alues, then' a0 in the constructi!e logic, V*1-*10, 5#W' B17 B1 , B 27 B 2 , $$$ , B n7 Bn U- 9, b0 in the classical logic, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 9$ "orollary ,.0.,$ The classical propositional axio2s V*1-*11, 5#W are Sco2pleteS in the sense that if one would add any for2ula that canBt yet be pro!ed fro2 these axio2s, then one would obtain a syste2, in which all for2ulas are pro!able, i$e$ an inconsistent syste2$ Rf course, /b0 follows fro2 /a0 i22ediately E all the pre2ises B17 B1 , B 27 B 2 , $$$ , B n7 B n are instances of the axio2 *11$ The corollary also follows i22ediately$ 7ndeed, if so2e for2ula 9 canBt be pro!ed fro2 V*1-*11, 5#W, then it takes false !alue for so2e co2bination of truth-!alues of its ato2s$ (eplace each true ato2 by the for2ula 6`6, and each false ato2 3 by f/6`60$ 7n this way we obtain a for2ula 9B that takes only false !alues, i$e$ f9B takes only true !alues, and hence, can be pro!ed fro2 V*1-*11, 5#W$ Thus, if we would add 9 to V*1-*11, 5#W as an axio2 sche2a, then, in this syste2, the for2ulas 9B and f9B will be pro!able, and by *10 3 any for2ula will be pro!able$ 6ote. 6ssu2e, the for2ula 9 is built of ato2s G 1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 7f, under the classical truth tables, for any /possible and i2possible0 truth-!alues of G1, G2, $$$, Gn, for2ula 9 takes only true !alues, then 9 is called a tautology$ Theore2 -$2$- says that any tautology can be $roved in the classical $ro$ositional logic$ <o2pleteness of the classical propositional logic was first pro!ed by @2il *$ #ost in his 1+20 #h$ $ thesis, and published as #. Post$ 7ntroduction to a general theory of ele2entary propositions ( American /o$rna% of .athematics, 1+21, !ol$ -&, pp$1,&-1C.$

1&.
6bout the history, see also' %ichard Cach$ <o2pleteness before #ost' Gernays, Hilbert, and the de!elop2ent of propositional logic$ The B$%%etin of Symbo%ic Logic, 1+++, !ol$ ., ?&, pp$&&1-&,, /online copy a!ailable0$

9ollowing an elegant later idea by *as:lo "al2ar we need two si2ple le22as before trying to pro!e this theore2$ L. Kalmar$ )eber 6xio2atisiebarkeit des 6ussagenkalkuels$ scientiari$m mathematicar$m S3ege+!$ 1+&--&.$ !ol$ =, pp$ 222-2-&$ Acta

Lemma ,.0./. 7n the constructi!e logic, one can Sco2puteS the classical truth!alues of 7 B , B 5 C , B C , B C in the following sense' 6egation V W' fG U- fG Im$lication V*10, 5#W' fG, f< U- G`< "onBunction DisBunction

V*1, *2, *&, *+, 5#W' V*1-*+, 5#W' fG, f< U7 ( B C ) fG,f< U7 ( B C )

V*1, *2, *+, V*10, 5#W' 5#W' fG, < U- G`< G U- ffG

V*1, *2, *&, *+, 5#W' V*=, 5#W' fG, < U- 7 ( BC ) fG, < U- BC

V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' V*1, *2, *-, *+, 5#W' V*,, 5#W' G, f< U- f/G`<0 G, f< U- 7 ( BC ) V*1, 5#W' G, < U- G`< V*., 5#W' G, < U- BC G, f< U- BC V*,, 5#W' G, < U- BC

6ote$ Thus, to Sco2puteS the classical truth-!alues, the axio2 *11 is not necessary; Proo!. R' SD R' 722ediately, in any logic$ ' SD R R' Gy Theore2 2$-$-$ V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- 6`ff6$ R', " SD 'F" R', R" SD 'F"

1&, Gy axio2 *10' fG`/G`<0 we obtain fG U- G`<$ This co!ers both cases$ ', R" SD R('F") This is exactly Theore2 2$-$1/c0 V*1, *2, *+, 5#W$ ', " SD 'F" Gy axio2 *1' <`/G`<0 we obtain < U- G`<$ R', R" SD ( B C ) R', " SD ( B C ) Gy axio2 *&' BC 5 B and the <ontraposition *aw /Theore2 2$-$20 V* 1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/fG`f60 we obtain U- 7 B 5 7 ( B C ) , and fG U7 ( BC ) $ This co!ers both cases$ ', R" SD ( B C ) Gy axio2 *-' BC 5 C and the <ontraposition *aw /Theore2 2$-$20 V*1, *2, *+, 5#W' U- /6`G0`/fG`f60 we obtain U- 7C 5 7( BC ) , an f< U7 ( B C ) $ ', " SD B C Gy axio2 *.' B 5 ( C 5 BC ) we obtain G, < U- BC $ R', R" SD ( B C ) Gy Theore2 2$-$10/b0$ R', " SD BC Gy axio2 *=' C 5 B'C we obtain < U- BC $ ', R" SD BC ', " SD BC Gy axio2 *,' B 5 BC we obtain G U- BC $ This co!ers both cases$ D$@$ $ 6s the next step, we will generali:e *e22a -$2$. by showing how to Sco2puteS truth-!alues of arbitrary for2ula 9, which is built of for2ulas G 1, G2, $$$, Gn by using 2ore than one propositional connecti!e$ 9or exa2ple, let us take the for2ula BC 5 B C ' G < BC
B C

B C 5 B C

1&= 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

1e will show that, in the constructi!e logic V*1-*10, 5#W' fG, f< U- BC 5 B C , fG, < U- 7 ( BC 5 B C ) , G, f< U- 7 ( BC 5 B C ) , fG, f< U- BC 5 B C $ Lemma ,.0.1. 6ssu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 6ssu2e that, if the for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gn take the truth-!alues !1, !2, $$$, !n respecti!ely, then, for these !alues, for2ula 9 takes the truth-!alue w$ Then, in the constructi!e logic, we can Sco2puteS the truth-!alue of 9 in the following sense' V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- w9, where' w9 denotes 9, if w is true, and f9, if w is false, and ! iGi denotes Gi, if !i is true, and fGi, if !i is false$ Proo!. Gy induction$ Induction base. 9 is one of the for2ulas G i$ Then w^!i, and, of course, in any logic, !iGi U- w9$ Induction ste$. ?ote that *e22a -$2$. represents the assertion of *e22a -$2$, for for2ulas built of G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using a single propositional connecti!e$ 1$ < is R7$ Gy the induction assu2ption, V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- wBA, where wB represents the truth-!alue of A$ Gy *e22a -$2$., V*1-*10, 5#W' wBA U- w9, hence, V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- w9$ 2$ < is 7 o &, where o is i2plication, con>unction, or dis>unction$ Gy the induction assu2ption, V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- wBA,

1&C where wB represents the truth-!alue of A, and V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- wBBH, where wBB represents the truth-!alue of H$ Gy *e22a -$2$., V*1-*10, 5#W' wBA, wBBH U- w9, hence, V*1-*10, 5#W' !1G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- w9$ D$@$ $ Proo! o! ;heorem ,.0.,(a). Gy *e22a -$2$,' V*1-*10, 5#W' G1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- 9, V*1-*10, 5#W' fG1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- 9, because 9 takes only true !alues$ Gy V*1, *2, 5#W eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*10, 5#W' !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- G1`9, V*1-*10, 5#W' !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- fG1`9, *et us 2erge these two proofs and append an instance of the axio2 *C' U- ( B1 5 F ) 5 (( 7 B1 5 F ) 5 ( B17 B1 5 F )) $ Hence, by 5#' V*1-*10, 5#W' !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- B17 B;5 F , and V*1-*10, 5#W' G1!fG1, !2G2, $$$, !nGn U- 9$ Gy repeating this operation we obtain Theore2 -$2$-/a0' V*1-*10, 5#W' B17 B1 , B 27 B 2 , $$$ , B n7 Bn U- 9$ D$@$ $ "om$utational "om$le9ity o! the Problem 9ro2 now on, we could forget our ability of pro!ing for2ulas in the classical propositional logic, learned in %ection 2$ 7ndeed, in order to !erify, is a for2ula pro!able in V*1-*11, 5#W, or not, we can si2ply check, under the classical truth tables, takes this for2ula only true !alues, or not$ 7s this checking really si2pler than pro!ing of for2ulas in V*1-*11, 5#W8 7f the for2ula contains n different ato2s 6, G, <, $$$, then its truth table contains 2n rows that 2ust be checked one by one$ Rf course, if the for2ula

1&+ contains 2 ato2s /like as ( A 5 B ) 5 7 A B , or & ato2s /like as the 6xio2 *20, then its truth table consists of - or C rows E for 2ost people this is a feasible task$ Gut the Struth tableS for a for2ula containing &2 ato2s contains four billions of rows to check$$$ %o, let us try in!enting a 2ore efficient algorith28 7t see2s, we will ne!er succeed E the proble2 of deter2ining the classical pro!ability of propositional for2ulas belongs to the co2plexity class Mco-?#co2pleteN, see Goolean satisfiability proble2 in 1ikipedia$ 6nd the proble2 of deter2ining the constructive pro!ability of propositional for2ulas is e!en harder 3 it belongs to the co2plexity class M#%#6<@-co2pleteN, see'
%ichard .tatman. 7ntuitionistic propositional logic is polyno2ial-space co2plete, Theoretical <o2puter %cience + /1+=+0, pp$ ,=3=2 /online copy a!ailable0$

,.+. "lassical Predicate Logic Q 7MdelJs "om$leteness ;heorem

"urt AFdel /1+0,-1+=C0 SHe is best known for his proof of AFdelBs 7nco2pleteness Theore2s$ 7n 1+&1 he published these results in Hber forma% $nentschei+bare SIt3e +er Principia .athematica $n+ 'er-an+ter Systeme ( (((AFdelBs results were a land2ark in 20th-century 2athe2atics, showing that 2athe2atics is not a finished ob>ect, as had been belie!ed$ 7t also i2plies that a co2puter can ne!er be progra22ed to answer all 2athe2atical Questions$S /6ccording to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ 6s a!id Hilbert and 1ilhel2 6cker2ann published in D.&ilbert, 3.5ckermann$ Arund:uege der theoretischen *ogik$ Gerlin /%pringer0, 1+2C their, in a sense, SfinalS !ersion of the axio2s of classical logic, they obser!ed' S1hether the syste2 of axio2s is co2plete at least in the sense that all the logical for2ulas which are correct for each do2ain of indi!iduals can actually be deri!ed fro2 the2, is still an unsol!ed Question$S
/Quoted after .. ". Kleene$ The 1ork of "urt AFdel$ SThe Hournal of %y2bolic *ogicS, ece2ber 1+=,, Vol$-1, ?-, pp$=,1-==C %ee also' Hilbert and 6cker2annBs 1+2C *ogic Gook by %tanley ?$ Gurris0$

7ndeed, as we will !erify below, a0 all axio2s of the classical logic /* 1-*11, *12-*1.0 are logically !alid, b0 the inference rules 5#, Aen allow to pro!e /fro2 logically !alid for2ulas0 only logically !alid for2ulas$ Hence, in this

1-0 way only logically !alid for2ulas can be pro!ed$ %till, is our list of logical axio2s co2plete in the sense that all logically valid !ormulas can be $roved4 E the Question asked by Hilbert and 6cker2ann in 1+2C$ The answer is SyesS E as "urt AFdel established in 1+2+, in his doctoral dissertation S)eber die Vollstlndigkeit des *ogikkalkuelsS/!isit AFdelBs 6rchi!e in the #rinceton )ni!ersity *ibrary0$ The corresponding paper appeared in 1+&0' K. 7Mdel. ie Vollstlndigkeit der 6xio2e des logischen 9unktionenkalkuels$ S5onatshefte fuer 5athe2atik und #hysikS, 1+&0, Vol$&=, pp$&-+-&,0$ 7MdelJs "om$leteness ;heorem. 7n any predicate language, a for2ula is logically !alid, if and only if it can be pro!ed by using the classical logic V* 1*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW$ 7n fact, a 2ore general theore2 can be pro!ed' ;heorem ,.+.I /Thanks to %une 9oldager for the idea$0$ 7f T is a first order theory with classical logic, then so2e for2ula 9 is always true in all 2odels of T, if and only if T pro!es 9$ AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2 follows fro2 Theore2 -$&$0, if the set of specific axio2s of T is e2pty$ 9irst, let us pro!e the easy part /so2eti2es called the soundness theorem0 E that all the for2ulas that can be pro!ed by using the classical logic V* 1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW are logically !alid$ Lemma ,.+.). 6ll the axio2s of the classical logic /*1-*11, *12-*1.0 are logically !alid$ Proo!. 10 )nder the classical truth tables, the propositional axio2s * 1-*11 take only true !alues /*e22a -$2$10$ Hence, these axio2s are true under all interpretations$ 2a0 L)0' x9/x0`9/t0, where 9 is any for2ula, and t is a ter2 such that the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible$ *et us assu2e that, under so2e interpretation H, for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, *12 is false$ 6ccording to the classical truth tables, this could be only, if and only if x9/x0 were true, and 9/t0 were false /under the interpretation H, for the sa2e abo!e-2entioned !alues of free !ariables0$ *et us Sco2puteS the !alue of the ter2 t for these !alues of free !ariables /since the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible, t 2ay contain only these !ariables0, and denote it by c$ Thus, 9/c0 is false$ Gut x9/x0 is true, hence, 9/a0 is true for all a , / , i$e$ 9/c0 also is true$ <ontradiction$ Hence, * 12 is true under all

1-1 interpretations for all co2binations of its free !ariables$ 2b0 L)+' 9/t0`x9/x0, where 9 is any for2ula, and t is a ter2 such that the substitution 9/xPt0 is ad2issible$ %i2ilarly, see @xercise -$&$1$ 2c0 L),' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00, where 9 is any for2ula, and A is a for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable$ *et us assu2e that, under so2e interpretation H, for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, *1- is false$ 6ccording to the classical truth tables, this could be only, if and only if x/A`9/x00 were true, and A`x9/x0 were false /under the interpretation H, for the sa2e abo!e-2entioned !alues of free !ariables0 7f x/A`9/x00 is true, then A`9/c0 is true for all c , / $ %ince A does not contain x, this 2eans that if A is true, then 9/c0 is true for all c ,/ $ 9ro2 the orher side, if A`x9/x0 is false, then A is true, and x9/x0 is false$ 6nd finally, if x9/x0 is false, then 9/c0 is false for so2e c ,/ $ Gut, as we established abo!e, if A is true, then 9/c0 is true for all c ,/ $ <ontradiction$ Hence, under all interpretations, *1- is true for all co2binations of its free !ariables$ 2d0 L)/' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0, where 9 is any for2ula, and A is a for2ula that does not contain x as a free !ariable$ %i2ilarly, see @xercise -$&$1$ D$@$ $ #9ercise ,.+.). Verify that the axio2s *1& and *1. are logically !alid$ Lemma ,.+.0. 9ro2 logically !alid for2ulas, inference rules 5# and Aen allow deri!ing only of logically !alid for2ulas$$ Proo!. 1$ Modus Ponens$ 6ssu2e, G and G`< are logically !alid for2ulas$ Gy 5#, we deri!e <$ 6ssu2e, < is not logically !alid, i$e$, under so2e interpretation H, for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, < is false$ )nder this interpretation H, for these !alues of free !ariables of <, the for2ulas G and G`< are true$ Then, according to the classical truth tables, < also 2ust be true$ <ontradiction$ Hence, < is logically !alid$ 2$ 7enerali=ation$ 6ssu2e, 9/x0 is logically !alid, but x9/x0 is not, i$e$, under so2e interpretation H, for so2e !alues of its free !ariables, x9/x0 is false$ Hence, under this interpretation H, for these !alues of free !ariables of x9/x0, there is c ,/ such that 9/c0 is false$ Gut 9/x0 is logically !alid, i$e$

1-2 9/c0 is true$ <ontradiction$ Hence, x9/x0 is logically !alid$ D$@$ $ "orollary ,.+.+ (soundness o! the classical $redicate logic) $ 6ll the for2ulas that can be pro!ed by using the classical logic V* 1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, are logically !alid$ Proo!. 722ediately, by *e22as -$&$1 and -$&$2$ #9ercise ,.+.)T. Verify that if, under an interpretation H, all specific a9ioms of a theory T are true, then all theorems of T also are true under H$ /Hint' each theore2 < is pro!ed by using so2e finite set of specific axio2s, let us denote by G the con>unction of these axio2s, consider the for2ula G`<, and use <orollary -$&$&$0 Rf course, the abo!e soundness theore2 is the easy half of AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2$ To co2plete the proof, we 2ust pro!e the con!erse' if so2e for2ula is logically !alid, then it can be pro!ed by using the classical logic V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW$ &enkinJs Model #9istence ;heorem AFdelBs initial !ery co2plicated proof fro2 1+2+ was greatly si2plified in 1+-=, when *eon Henkin obser!ed in his #h$ $ thesis that the hard part of the proof can be generali:ed, si2plified and best presented as the so-called 5odel @xistence Theore2$ The result was published in 1+-+'
L. &enkin. The co2pleteness of the first-order functional calculus$ SH$ %y2bolic *ogicS, 1+-+, !ol$1-, pp$1.+-1,,$ %ee also HenkinBs later account of his disco!ery' L. &enkin. The disco!ery of 2y co2pleteness proofs$ SThe Gulletin of %y2bolic *ogicS, 1++,, !ol$2, ?2, pp$12=-1.C$ HenkinBs proof was further si2plified by Aisbert Hasen>lger in 1+.&' 7. &asenBUger$ @ine Ge2erkung :u HenkinBs Geweis fuer die Vollstlndigkeit des #rldikatenkalkuels der ersten %tufe$ SH$ %y2bolic *ogicS, 1+.&, !ol$1C, pp$-2--C$

&enkinJs Model #9istence ;heorem. 7f a first order classical for2al theory is consistent /in the sense that, by using the classical logic, it does not pro!e contradictions0, then there is a finite or countable 2odel of this theory /i$e$ an interpretation with a finite or countable do2ain, under which all axio2s and theore2s of the theory are always true0$ 7n the 1+20s, so2e people insisted that 2ere consistency of a theory /in the syntactic sense of the word E as the lack of contradictions0 is not sufficient to regard it as a 2eaningful theory E as a Stheory of so2ethingS$ 5odel

1-& @xistence Theore2 says the contrary E /syntactic;0 consistency of a theory is sufficient' i! a theory does not contain contradictions, then it is a >theory o! something> E it describes at least so2e kind of S2athe2atical realityS$ 9or exa2ple, you 2ay think that @uclidean geo2etry is S2eaninglessS E because it does not describe 100T correctly the spacial properties of the )ni!erse$ Gut itBs your proble2, not @uclidBs E use another theory, if necessary$ @uclidean geo2etry describes its own kind of S2athe2atical realityS 3 and 100T correctly; *et us assu2e the 5odel @xistence Theore2 /we will pro!e it later in this %ection0$ Proo! o! ;heorem ,.+.I. 7f T pro!es 9, then 9 is always true in all 2odels of T /@xercise -$&$1J0$ ?ow, let us assu2e that so2e for2ula 9 is always true in all 2odels of theory T, yet it cannot be pro!ed in T$ *et us consider the theory TB in the language of T which contains /besides the axio2s of T0 an additional non-logical axio2 E the negation of 9, i$e$ the for2ula fx1$$$xn9, where x1, $$, xn are exactly all the free !ariables of 9 /if 9 contains free !ariables x1, $$, xn, then, to negate its assertion, we 2ust add to 9 the Quantifiers x1$$$xn0$ %ince 9 cannot be deri!ed fro2 the axio2s of T, ;J is a consistent theory. 7ndeed, if TB would be inconsistent, i$e$ we could pro!e in TB so2e for2ula < and its negation f<, then we had proofs of VTW' fx1$$$xn9 U- <, and VTW' fx1$$$xn9 U- f<$ %ince fx1$$$xn9 is a closed for2ula, by eduction Theore2 2, VTW' U- fx1$$$xn9 `<, and VTW' U- fx1$$$xn9 `f<$ ?ow, by axio2 *+' /G`<0`/G`f<0`fG, we obtain that VTW' U- ffx1$$$xn9$ Gy the /classical0 ouble ?egation *aw, this i2plies VTW' U- x1$$$xn9, and by axio2 *12' xG/x0`G/x0 E VTW' U- 9$ Gut, by our assu2ption, 9 cannot be pro!ed in T$ Hence, TB is a consistent theory$ ?ow, by the 5odel @xistence Theore2, there is a 2odel of TB, i$e$ an interpretation H that 2akes all its axio2s always true$ )nder this interpretation, all axio2s of T are always true, i$e$ H is a 2odel of T$ 6nd the for2ula fx1$$$xn9 /as an axio2 of TB0 also is true under H$ Rn the other hand, since 9 is always true in all 2odels of T, it is always true also under the interpretation H$ Hence, for2ulas x1$$$xn9 and fx1$$$xn9 both are always true under H$ This is i2possible, hence, 9 2ust be pro!able in T$ D$@$ $ 1$ %uch a si2ple proof see2s al2ost i2possible; 1e are pro!ing that the

1-logical axio2s and rules of inference are strong enough, but where co2e these axio2s in8 They co2e in E in the proof of the 5odel @xistence Theore2$ This theore2 says that if so2e for2al theory T does not ha!e 2odels, then the logical axio2s and rules of inference are strong enough to deri!e a contradiction fro2 the axio2s of T$ Gut the proof of the 5odel @xistence Theore2 that we will consider below, is positi!e, not negati!e; 2$ The abo!e si2ple proof see2s to be extre2ely non-constructi!e; S7f 9 is always true in all 2odels of T, then it can be pro!ed in TS$ How could we obtain this proof8 %till, how do we know that 9 is true in all 2odels of T8 Rnly, if we had a constructi!e procedure that is !erifying this, we could ask for an algorith2 con!erting such procedures into proofs in T; Proo! o! &enkinJs Model #9istence ;heorem #9ercise ,.+.+ /for s2art students0$ #ro!e HenkinBs 5odel @xistence Theore2 by using the following s2art ideas due to *$ Henkin and A$ Hasen>lger$ *et T be a consistent theory$ 1e 2ust build a 2odel of T$ 1hat kind of SbricksS should we use for this SbuildingS8 Idea V)? let us use ob>ect constants of the language; %o, let us add to the language of T an infinite set of new ob>ect constants d1, d2, d&, $$$ /and adopt the corresponding additional instances of logical axio2s0$ #ro!e that this extended theory T0 is consistent$ The 2odel we are building 2ust contain all Sob>ectsS whose existence can be pro!ed in T0$ Idea V0? for each for2ula 9 of T0 ha!ing exactly one free !ariable /for exa2ple, x0 let us add to the theory T 0 the axio2 x9/x0`9/di0, where the constant di is uniQue for each 9$ 7f T0 pro!es x9/x0, then this constant di will represent in our 2odel the Sob>ectS x ha!ing the property 9$ #ro!e that this extended theory T1 is consistent$ 7dea [&' pro!e the /non-constructi!e0 *indenbau2Bs le22a' the axio2 set of any consistent theory can be extended in such a way, that the extended theory is consistent and co2plete /the axio2 set of the extended theory 2ay be not effecti!ely sol!able0$ 6fter this, extend T1 to a consistent co2plete theory T2$ Idea V,? let us take as the do2ain of the interpretation 5 the set of all those ter2s of T 0 that do not contain !ariables$ 6nd let us interpret each function constant f as the Ssyntactic constructor functionS fB, i$e$ let us define the !alue fB/t 1, $$$, tn0 si2ply as the character string Sf/t1, $$$, tn0S$ 9inally, let us interpret each predicate constant p as the relation pB such that pB/t1, $$$, tn0 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 pro!es pB/t1, $$$, tn0$ To co2plete the proof, pro!e that an arbitrary for2ula A is always true in 5, if and only if T2 pro!es A$ Hence, all theore2s of the initial theory T are

1-. always true in 5$

6dolf *indenbau2 /1+0--1+-1, picture0, see also Verfolgte 5athe2atiker$ His wife Hanina Hosiasson-*indenbau2 /1C++-1+-1, picture0, see also @iA@?%i?? philosophiestudentische Leitung, Huli 200,$

LindenbaumJs Lemma$ 6ny consistent first order theory can be extended to a consistent co2plete theory$ 5ore precisely, if T is a consistent first order theory, then, in the language of T, there is a set 6 of closed for2ulas such that T\6 is a consistent co2plete theory$ /7n general, T\6 is not a for2al theory in the sense of %ection 1$1, see below$0 6ote$ Gy T\6 we denote the first order theory in the language of T, obtained fro2 T by adding the for2ulas of the set 6 as non-logical axio2s$ #9ercise ,.+.,. Verify that, in any predicate language *, only countably 2any for2ulas can be generated$ 7$e$ produce an algorith2 for printing out a seQuence 90, 91, 92, $$$ containing all the for2ulas of *$ Proo! o! the LindenbaumJs Lemma /5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8) *et us use the algorith2 of the @xercise -$&$- printing out the seQuence 9 0, 91, 92, $$$ of all for2ulas in the language of T, and let us run through this seQuence, processing only those for2ulas 9i that are closed$ 6t the !ery beginning, the set of new axio2s 60 is e2pty$ 6t the step i, we already ha!e so2e set 6i-1 of new axio2s$ 7f the for2ula 9i is not closed, let us ignore it, and set 6 i^6i-1$ ?ow, let us suppose that 9i is a closed for2ula$ 7f T\6i-1 pro!es 9i, or T\6i-1 pro!es f9i, then we can ignore this for2ula, and set 6i^6i-1$ 7f T\6 does not pro!e neither 9 i, nor f9i, then let us si2ply add 9i /or f9i, if you like it better0 to our set of new axio2s, i$e$ set Ai= Ai1{ Fi } $ @tc$, ad infinitu2$ 6s the result of this process we obtain a set of closed for2ulas A= A0 A1 A2$$$ Ai $$$ $ *et us pro!e that T\6 is a consistent co2plete theory$ "onsistency. 7f T\6 would be inconsistent, we would ha!e a proof of VT\6W UC 7C for so2e for2ula <$ 7f, in this proof, no axio2s fro2 the set 6 would be used, we would ha!e a proof of VTW U- C 7C , i$e$ T would be inconsistent$ Rtherwise, the proof of VT\6W U- C 7C could contain a finite nu2ber of axio2s G1, $$$, Gk fro2 the set 6$ *et us arrange these axio2s in the seQuence,

1-, as we added the2 to the set 6$ Thus we ha!e a proof of VTW' G 1, $$$, Gk UC 7C $ *et us recall Theore2 2$-$1/a0' 7f 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- C 7C , then 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- fG$ Hence, we ha!e a proof of VTW' G 1, $$$, Gk-1 U- fGk$ Gut this is i2possible E we added Gk to the set 6 >ust because T\6i-1 could not pro!e neither Gk, nor fGk$ D$@$ $ "om$leteness. 1e 2ust !erify that, for any closed for2ula 9 in the language of T, either T\6 U- 9, or T\6 U- f9$ *et us assu2e, this is not the case for so2e closed for2ula 9$ Rf course, 9 appears in the abo!e seQuence 9 0, 91, 92, $$$ as so2e 9i$ 7f neither T\6 U- 9, nor T\6 U- f9, then neither T\6 i-1 U- 9i, nor T\6i1 U- f9i$ 7n such a situation we would add 9 to the set 6, hence, we would ha!e T\6 U- 9$ D$@$ $ This co2pletes the proof of *indenbau2Bs *e22a$ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 T\6 is a so2ewhat strange theory, because, in general, we do not ha!e an effecti!e decision procedure for its axio2 set$ 7ndeed, to decide, is so2e closed for2ula 9 an axio2 of T\6, or not, we 2ust identify 9 in the seQuence 9 0, 91, 92, $$$ as so2e 9i, and after this, we 2ust !erify, whether T\6i-1 pro!es 9i, or T\6i-1 pro!es f9i, or none of these$ Thus, in general, T\6 is not a for2al theory in the sense of ion 1$1$ Proo! o! the Model #9istence ;heorem /5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8) 7nspired by the beautiful exposition in 5endelson V1++=W$ .te$ ). 1e 2ust build a 2odel of T$ 1hat kind of SbricksS should we use for this SbuildingS8 7dea [1' let us use ob>ect constants of the language; %o, in order to prepare enough SbricksS, let us add to the language of T a countable set of new ob>ect constants d1, d2, d&, $$$ /and extend the definitions of ter2s, ato2ic for2ulas and for2ulas accordingly, and add new instances of logical axio2s accordingly0$ *et us pro!e that, if T is consistent, then this extended theory T0 also is consistent$ 7f T0 would be inconsistent, then, for so2e for2ula <, we could obtain a proof of VT0W' U- C 7C $ 7f, in this proof, ob>ect constants fro2 the set Xd1, d2, d&, $$$Y would not appear at all, then, in fact, we had a proof of VTW' U- C 7C , i$e$ we could conclude that T is inconsistent$ Gut, if the new ob>ect constants do appear in the proof of VT0W' U- C 7C 8 Then, let us replace these constants by any !ariables of T that do not appear in this proof /this is

1-= possible, since each predicate language contains a countable set of ob>ect !ariables0$ 6fter these substitutions, the proof beco2es a !alid proofs of T, because' a0 The logical axio2s re2ain !alid$ b0 The non-logical axio2s of T do not contain the ob>ect constants d1, d2, d&, $$$, i$e$ they do not change$ c0 6pplications of inference rules 5# and Aen re2ain !alid$ Hence, VTW' U- C G 7C G , where the for2ula <B has been obtained fro2 < by the abo!e substitutions$ 7$e$, if T0 would be inconsistent, then T also would be inconsistent$ .te$ 0. The 2odel we are building 2ust contain all Sob>ectsS whose existence can be pro!ed in T0$ 7dea [2' for each for2ula 9 of T 0 ha!ing exactly one free !ariable /for exa2ple, x0 let us add to the theory T 0 the axio2 x9/x0`9/di0, where the constant di is uniQue for each 9$ 7f T0 pro!es x9/x0, then this di will represent in our 2odel the Sob>ectS x ha!ing the property 9$ *et us pro!e that, if T is consistent, then this extended theory T1 also is consistent$ ?ote that in T1 the sa2e language is used as in T0$ To i2ple2ent the 7dea [2 correctly, first let us use the algorith2 of the @xercise -$&$- printing out the seQuence 9 0, 91, 92, $$$ of all for2ulas in the language of T0, and let us run through this seQuence, processing only those for2ulas 9i that ha!e exactly one free !ariable$ *et us assign to each such for2ula 9i a uniQue constant dc/i0 in such a way that dc/i0 does not appear neither in the non-logical axio2s of T, nor in 9 i, nor in the axio2s y9>/y0`9>/dc/>00 for all for2ulas 9> preceding 9i in the seQuence 90, 91, 92, $$$$ 6nd, if x is the /only0 free !ariable of 9 i, let us adopt x9i/x0`9>/dc/i00 as an axio2 of T1$ ?ow, let us assu2e that the extended theory T1 is inconsistent, i$e$ that, for so2e for2ula < of T0, we ha!e a proof of VT 1W' U- C 7C $ 7n these proofs, only a finite nu2ber n of axio2s x9/x0`9/dc/900 could be used$ 7f n^0, then we ha!e VT0W' U- C 7C , i$e$ then T0 is inconsistent$ 7f nb0, then let us 2ark the axio2 x9/x0`9/d c/900 with 9 ha!ing the largest index in the seQuence 90, 91, 92, $$$$ 6nd, in the proof of VT1W' U- C 7C , let us replace the constant c/90 by so2e !ariable y that does not appear in this

1-C proof /this is possible, since each predicate language contains a countable set of !ariables0$ 6fter this substitution, the proof re2ain a !alid proof of T 1, because' a0 The logical axio2s re2ain !alid$ b0 The non-logical axio2s of T do not contain the constant c/90, i$e$ they do not change$ c0 The axio2 x9/x0`9/dc/900 beco2es x9/x0`9/y0$ %ince 9 does not contain the constant c/90, the pre2ise x9/x0 does not change$ d0 The re2aining n-1 axio2s y9>/y0`9>/dc/>00 of T1 do not contain the constant c/90, i$e$ they do not change$ e0 6pplications of inference rules 5# and Aen re2ain !alid$ Thus we ha!e now another proof of a contradiction E VT 1W' U- C G 7C G , where the for2ula <B has been obtained fro2 < by substituting y for c/90$ *et us recall Theore2 2$-$1/a0' 7f 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- C 7C , then 61, 62, $$$, 6n U- fG$ *et us take the for2ula x9/x0`9/y0 for G, and <B- for <$ Thus, there is a proof of f/x9/x0`9/y00, where only logical axio2s, non-logical axio2s of T, and the re2aining n-1 axio2s y9>/y0`9>/dc/>00 of T1 are used$ *et us recall the @xercise 2$,$&/b0 V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 7 ( A 5 B ) 6 A7 B $ Thus, f/x9/x0`9/y00 is eQui!alent to xF ( x )7 F ( y ) , and, in fact, we ha!e a proof of x9/x0, and a proof of f9/y0$ Gy applying Aen to the second for2ula, we obtain a proof of yf9/y0, which is eQui!alent to fy9/y0 /indeed, let us recall %ection &$2, Table &$2, Aroup 7V, constructi!ely, U- xfGafxG0$ Gy (eplace2ent Theore2 &, fy9/y0 is eQui!alent to fx9/x0$ Thus, we ha!e a proof of a contradiction xF ( x )7 xF ( x ) , where only logical axio2s, non-logical axio2s of T, and the re2aining n-1 axio2s y9>/y0`9>/dc/>00 of T1 are used$ *et us repeat the abo!e chain of reasoning another n-1 ti2es to eli2inate all occurrences of the axio2s x9/x0`9/dc/900 fro2 our proof of a contradiction$ 7n this way we obtain a proof of a contradiction in T0, which is i2possible /see %tep 10$ Hence, T1 is a consistent theory$ .te$ +. 7dea [&' let us use the /non-constructi!e;0 *indenbau2Bs le22a, and extend T1 to a consistent co2plete theory T2$ ?ote that in T2 the sa2e language is used as in T0$

1-+ .te$ ,. *et us define an interpretation 5 of the language of T 0, in which all theore2s of T2 will be always true$ %ince all theore2s of the initial theory T are theore2s of T2, this will co2plete our proof$ 7dea [-' let us take as the do2ain 5 of the interpretation 5 the /countable; E !erify;0 set of all constant ter2s of T0, i$e$ ter2s that do not contain !ariables /this set of ter2s is not e2pty, it contains at least the countable set of ob>ect constants added in %tep 10$ 6nd let us define interpretations of ob>ect constants, function constants and predicate constants as follows$ a0 The interpretation of each ob>ect constant c is the constant c itself$ b0 The interpretation of a function constant f is the Ssyntactic constructor functionS fB, i$e$, if f is an n-ary function constant, and t 1, $$$, tn are constant ter2s, then the !alue fB/t1, $$$, tn0 is defined si2ply as the character string Sf/t1, $$$, tn0S /Quotation 2arks ignored0$ c0 The interpretation of a predicate constant p is the relation pB such, if p is an n-ary predicate constant, and t1, $$$, tn are constant ter2s, then pB/t1, $$$, tn0 is defined as true in 5, if and only if T 2 pro!es p/t1, $$$, tn0 /note that T2 is a consistent co2plete theory, i$e$ it pro!es either p/t 1, $$$, tn0, or fp/t1, $$$, tn0, but not both;0$ .te$ /$ To co2plete the proof, we 2ust pro!e that, in the language of T 0, an arbitrary for2ula A is always true in 5, if and only if T 2 pro!es A /let us denote this, as usual, by T2 U- A$ This will be pro!ed, if we will pro!e that, if x1, $$$, x2 is the set of at least all free !ariables contained in the for2ula A, and t1, $$$, t2 are constant ter2s, then A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 UA/t1, $$$, t20$ The proof will be by induction$ Induction base' A is an ato2ic for2ula p/s1, $$$, sn0, where p is a predicate constant, and the ter2s s1, $$$, sn contain so2e of the !ariables x 1, $$$, x2$ 7n s1, $$$, sn, let us substitute for x1, $$$, x2 the ter2s t1, $$$, t2 respecti!ely$ 7n this way we obtain constant ter2s sB1, $$$, sBn$ Thus A/t1, $$$, t20 is si2ply p/sB1, $$$, sBn0$ Gy definition /see %tep -0, p/sB1, $$$, sBn0 is true, if and only if T2 U- p/sB1, $$$, sBn0, i$e$, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ Induction ste$. 6ote. %ince, T2 is a co2plete consistent theory, for any closed for2ula 9, T 2 pro!es either 9, or f9 /but not both0$ Hence, if we know that 9 is true in 5, if

1.0 and only if T2 U- 9, then we can conclude that 9 is false in 5, if and only if T 2 U- f9$ 7ndeed, if 9 is false, then 9 is not true, i$e$ T 2 does not pro!e 9, i$e$ T2 Uf9$ 6nd, if T2 U- f9, then T2 does not pro!e 9, i$e$ 9 is not true, i$e$ 9 is false$ 6nd con!ersely' if we know that 9 is false in 5, if and only if T 2 U- f9, then we can conclude that 9 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- 9$ 7ndeed, if 9 is true, then f9 is not true, i$e$ T2 does not pro!e f9, i$e$ T2 U- 9$ 6nd, if T2 U- 9, then T2 does not pro!e f9, i$e$ 9 is not false, i$e$ 9 is true$ "ase )? A is fH$ Then, according to the classical truth tables, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if H/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, H/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 U- H/t1, $$$, t20$ Then, by the abo!e note, since H/t1, $$$, t20 is a closed for2ula, H/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T2 U- fH/t1, $$$, t20, i$e$, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ "ase 0? A is H`"$ Then, according to the classical truth tables, A/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if H/t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, and "/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, H/t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 UH/t1, $$$, t20, and "/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 U- "/t1, $$$, t20$ Gy the abo!e note, "/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T 2 U- f"/t1, $$$, t20$ Hence, A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T2 U- H/t1, $$$, t20, and T2 U- f"/t1, $$$, t20, or, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if not /T2 U- H/t1, $$$, t20, and T2 U- f"/t1, $$$, t200$ *et us recall Theore2 2$2$1 and @xercise 2$,$&/a0, V* 1-*11, 5#W' U( A 5 B ) 6 7 ( A7 B ) $ 7n T2, all the axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence /!erify;0, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- H/t1, $$$, t20`"/t1, $$$, t20, or, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $

1.1 "ase +? A is H C $ Then, according to the classical truth tables, A/t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if H/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, and "/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, H/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 U- H/t1, $$$, t20, and "/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- "/t1, $$$, t20$ *et us recall Theore2 2$2$1$ 7n T 2, all the axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence /!erify;0, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- H ( t 1 , $$$ , t m) C ( t 1 , $$$ ,t m ) , or, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ "ase ,? A is H C $ Then, according to the classical truth tables, A/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if H/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, and "/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, and by the abo!e note, H/t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T 2 U- fH/t1, $$$, t20, and "/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T2 U- f"/t1, $$$, t20$ *et us recall Theore2 2$2$1 and Theore2 2$-$10/b0' V*1-*10, 5#W U- 7 ( A B ) 6 7 A7 B /the so-called %econd de 5organ *aw0$ 7n T2, all the axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence /!erify;0, A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T2 U- 7 ( H ( t 1 , $$$ , t m) C ( t 1, $$$ , t m )) , or, A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T 2 U- fA/t1, $$$, t20$ Thus, by the abo!e note, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ "ase /? A is xH$ Then, by definition, A/t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if H/x, t1, $$$, t20 is Strue for so2e xS, i$e$, if and only if H/t, t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5 for so2e constant ter2 t in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, H/t, t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- H/t, t1, $$$, t20$ *et us recall our abo!e %tep 2$ %ince H/x, t1, $$$, t20 is a for2ula containing exactly one free !ariable, in T2 we ha!e an axio2 xH/x, t1, $$$, t20`H/cH, t1, $$$, t20, where cH is an ob>ect constant$ 9irst, let us assu2e that A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5$ Then H/t, t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5 for so2e constant ter2 t in 5, hence, T 2 U- H/t, t1, $$$, t20 for this particular t$ *et us recall the axio2 * 1&' 9/t0`x9/x0$ %ince t is a constant ter2, this

1.2 axio2 is !alid for t$ 1e need the following instance of * 1&' H/t, t1, $$$, t20`xH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ 7n T2, all the axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence, T2 U- H/t, t1, $$$, t20`xH/x, t1, $$$, t20, and, by 5#, T2 U- xH/x, t1, $$$, t20, i$e$ T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ ?ow, let us assu2e that T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20, i$e$ T2 U- xH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ Gy the abo!e-2entioned axio2, T2 U- xH/x, t1, $$$, t20`H/cH, t1, $$$, t20, where cH is an ob>ect constant$ Thus, by 5#, T 2 U- H/cH, t1, $$$, t20$ %ince cH is a constant ter2, by the induction assu2ption, if T 2 U- H/cH, t1, $$$, t20, then H/cH, t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5$ Hence, H/cH, t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, i$e$ H/x, t1, $$$, t20 is true Sfor so2e xS, i$e$ xH/x, t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, i$e$ A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5$ D$@$ $ "ase 1? A is xH$ Gy definition, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if H/x, t1, $$$, t20 is Strue for all xS, i$e$, if and only if H/t, t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5 for all constant ter2s t in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, H/t, t 1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- H/t, t1, $$$, t20$ *et us pro!e that A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, if and only if T2 U- xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ 9irst, let us assu2e that A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5$ Then H/t, t 1, $$$, t20 is false in 5 for so2e constant ter2 t in 5$ Gy the induction assu2ption, and by the abo!e note, T2 U- fH/t, t1, $$$, t20$ 6s in the <ase ., let us recall the axio2 *1&' fH/t, t1, $$$, t20`xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ 7n T2, all the axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence, by 5#, T2 U- xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ ?ow, let us assu2e that T2 U- xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ 6s in the <ase ., let us recall the axio2 xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20`fH/cfH, t1, $$$, t20, where cfH is an ob>ect constant$ Hence, by 5#, T2 U- fH/cfH, t1, $$$, t20, i$e$ T2 does not pro!e H/cfH, t1, $$$, t20$ Then, by the induction assu2ption, H/c fH, t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, i$e$ xH/x, t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5, i$e A/t1, $$$, t20 is false in 5$ Thus, we know that A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T 2 does not pro!e xfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ %ince T2 is a co2plete theory, A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- fxfH/x, t1, $$$, t20$ ?ow, let us recall fro2 %ection &$2, Table &$2, Aroup 7, V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' U- fxfGaxG$ 7n T 2, all the

1.& axio2s of the classical logic are adopted, hence, T 2 U- fxfH/x, t1, $$$, t20, if and only if T2 U- xH/x, t1, $$$, t20, i$e$ A/t1, $$$, t20 is true in 5, if and only if T2 U- A/t1, $$$, t20$ D$@$ $ This co2pletes the proof of the 5odel @xistence Theore2$ D$@$ $ 5ttention? nonDconstructive reasoning8 The abo!e construction of the 2odel 5 see2s to be Sal2ost constructi!eS$ The do2ain 5 consists of all constant ter2s fro2 the language of T0$ The axio2 set of T1 is effecti!ely sol!able /!erify;0$ The interpretations of function constants are co2putable functions /!erify;0$ Gut the interpretations of predicate constants8 1e interpreted each predicate constant p as the relation pB such that pB/t 1, $$$, tn0 is true, if and only if T2 pro!es p/t1, $$$, tn0$ This relation would be, in general, effecti!ely unsol!able, e!en if the axio2 set of T2 would be sol!able; Gut, in general, the axio2 set of theory T2 /obtained by 2eans of *indenbau2Bs *e22a0 is not effecti!ely sol!able; Thus, our construction of the 2odel 5 is essentially nonconstructi!e$ #9ercise ,.+./ /for s2art students0$ eter2ine the Sdegree of nonconstructi!enessS of the 5odel @xistence Theore2$ /Hint' pro!e that it is m2, i$e$ that all the necessary functions are Sco2putable in the li2itS$ 6 function f/x0 is called co2putable in the li2it, if and only if there is a co2putable g ( x , y) 0 function g/x,y0 such that, for all x, f ( x )=li2 y "onse@uences o! 7MdelJs "om$leteness ;heorem 6otion o! Logical "onse@uence 6s noted abo!e /@xercise -$1$,0, so2e for2ula A is a Slogical conseQuenceS of the for2ulas 61, $$$, 6n, if and only if the for2ula 6 1, $$$, 6n`A is logically !alid, hence 3 if and only if, 7 can be derived !rom 5), ..., 5n by using the a9ioms and rules o! in!erence o! the classical logic. This co2pletes the for2ali:ation of the so2ewhat 2ystical notion of Slogical conseQuenceS$ "onsistency and .atis!iability 6 set of for2ulas 91, $$$, 9n is called inconsistent, if and only if a contradiction /i$e$ a for2ula B7 B 0 can be deri!ed fro2 it$ 9or exa2ple, the set XG, G`<, <`fGY is inconsistent /!erify0$

1.The 5odel @xistence Theore2 allows to connect the notions of consistency and satisfiability$ #9ercise ,.+.1. Verify, that a set of for2ulas in a predicate language' a0 is consistent in the classical logic, if and only if it is satisfiable, b0 is inconsistent in the classical logic, if and only if it is unsatisfiable$ /Hint' use the result of @xercise -$1$10$ "om$utational "om$le9ity o! the Problem "orollary ,.+.,. 7n any $redicate language the set of all logically !alid for2ulas is effecti!ely enu2erable$ 7$e$ gi!en a language *, we can write a co2puter progra2 that /working a+ infinit$m0 prints out all logically !alid for2ulas of *$ Proo!. 722ediately fro2 @xercise 1$1$- and AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2$ This 2akes AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2 !ery significant' it shows that the Sdoubly non-constructi!eS notion of logically !alid for2ula is at least .0T constructi!e 3 semiDconstructive; %till, unfortunately, this notion is not 100T constructi!e$ 7n 1+&,, 6lon:o <hurch pro!ed that at least so2e predicate languages do not allow an algorith2 deter2ining, is a gi!en for2ula logically !alid or not /i$e$ an algorith2 sol!ing the fa2ous Entschei+$ngsprob%em 3 the decision proble20'
5. "hurch. 6 note on the @ntscheidungsproble2$ SHournal of %y2b$ *ogicS, 1+&,, !ol$1, pp$-0--1

6fter this, *as:lo "al2ar in

L. Kalmar. ie Lurueckfuehrung des @ntscheidungsproble2s auf den 9all !on 9or2eln 2it einer ein:igen, binlren 9unktions!ariablen$ S<o2positio 5ath$S, 1+&,, Vol$-, pp$1&=-1--

i2pro!ed <hurchBs result' "hurchDKalmar ;heorem. 7f a predicate language contains at least one $redicate constant that is at least binary, then this language does not allow an algorith2 deter2ining, is a gi!en for2ula of this language logically !alid or not$ Thus, none of the serious predicate languages allows such an algorith2 /languages of #6 and L9 included0$ 9or details, 5endelson V1++=W$ %o2eti2es, this fact /the .0T constructi!eness of the notion of the logical !alidity0 is expressed a follows' the logical !alidity of predicate for2ulas is semiDdecidable$ "orollary ,.+./$ 7f a predicate language contains at least one predicate constant that is at least binary, then this language does not allow an algorith2

1.. deter2ining, does so2e for2ula A of this language follow fro2 so2e other for2ulas 61, $$$, 6n$ 7n other words 3 the task o! reasoning in such a language is not e!!ectively solvable. "hurchDKalmar ;heorem and Kno:ledge 'ases 7f we will build our knowledge base by using so2e predicate language, then, in general, the situation will be as follows' a0 1e will ha!e so2e set of constants registered in the knowledge base' obBect constants' c1, c2, $$$, ck, !unction constants and $redicate constants' p1, p2, $$$, p2 /with argu2ent nu2bers specified0$ VThe "losed 3orld 5ssum$tion' in the world, there exist only ob>ects denoted by our constants c1, c2, $$$, ck$ 7n fact, this assu2ption should be represented as an axio2 x /x^c1 ! x^c2 ! $$$ ! x^ck0$ The A$en 3orld 5ssum$tion' in the world, there exist 2ore ob>ects than denoted by our ob>ect constants$W b0 <acts, conce$ts and rules /MlawsN0 are stored in the set of for2ulas 91, 92, $$$, 9n$ 9acts are represented without or with negation, that do not contain !ariables' fpi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0$ 9acts build up a kind of Mdatabase rules 2ay ser!e as integrity con+itions$ knowledge base as a as ato2ic for2ulas, pi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0, or tablesN$ %o2e of the

VThe "losed 3orld 5ssum$tion' the predicate pi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0 is regarded as true, if and only if the for2ula pi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0 is stored in the knowledge base$ 7f there is no such for2ula in the knowledge base, then p i/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0 is assu2ed to be !alse$ The A$en 3orld 5ssum$tion' the predicate pi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0 is regarded as true or false, if and only if, correspondingly, the for2ula pi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0, or the for2ula fpi/c>1, c>2, $$$, c>s0 is stored in the knowledge base$W c0 6 @uery is si2ply another for2ula 8A$ 6nswering of such a Query 2eans that the 4$ery processor of the knowledge base 2ust deter2ine, does A /or, 2aybe, fA0 follow fro2 the for2ulas 91, 92, $$$, 9n, stored in the knowledge base$ 7f A contains a free !ariable x, then the Query 8A/x0 2eans the following' return all the ob>ect constants ci, for which the for2ula A/ci0 follows fro2 91, 92, $$$, 9n$

1., Thus, to build the Query processor of our knowledge base, we 2ust use so2e algorith2 allowing to deter2ine /as fast as possible0, gi!en the for2ulas 91, 92, $$$, 9n, A, does A follow fro2 91, 92, $$$, 9n, or not$ *etBs call this task the reasoning task$ "orollary /of the <hurch-"al2ar theore20$ 7f, when building a knowledge base, we will use the full power of so2e predicate language /containing at least one predicate constant that is at least binary0, then the reasoning task will be algorith2ically unsol!able, and 3 for such a knowledge base 3 :e :ill !ail to build a universal @uery $rocessor$ Thus, to build a really usable knowledge base, we 2ust restrict so2ehow our predicate language to 2ake the reasoning task sol!able$ 9or a successful atte2pt to do this see the so-called description logics$ .kolemJs Parado9 7nitially, the 5odel @xistence Theore2 was pro!ed in a weaker for2 in 1+1. /by *eopold *Fwenhei20 and 1+1+ /by Thoralf %kole20' if a first order theory has a 2odel, then it has a finite or countable 2odel /the fa2ous LM:enheimD .kolem theorem0$ #roof /after 1+-+0' if T has a 2odel, then T is consistent, i$e$ T has a finite or countable 2odel$
L. LM:enheim. )eber 5Fglichkeiten i2 (elati!kalkuel$ S5athe2atische 6nnalenS, 1+1., Vol$=,, pp$--=--=0$ ;h. .kolem. *ogisch-ko2binatorische )ntersuchungen gber die @rfgllbarkeit und Geweisbarkeit 2athe2atischen %lt:e nebst eine2 Theore2e gber dichte 5engen$ Ji+ens&absa&a+emiet i Cristiania, S&rifter 7, ?o$ -, 1+20, pp$ 1-&,$

*Fwenhei2-%kole2 theore2 /and the 5odel @xistence theore20 is steadily pro!oking the so-called .kolemJs Parado9, first noted by %kole2 in his address before the .th <ongress of %candina!ian 5athe2aticians /Huly --=, 1+220'
;h. .kolem. @inige Ge2erkungen :ur axio2atischen Gegruendung der 5engenlehre$ .atemati&er&ongressen i He%singfors +en K>L /$%i ;M99, ,en femte s&an+ina'is&a matemati&er&ongressen, )e+ogNre%se, 6kade2iska Gokhandeln, Helsinki, 1+2&, pp$ 21=-2&2$

%kole2 called the effect Srelati!ity of set-theoretic notionsS$ 7n all for2al set theories /for exa2ple, in L90 we can pro!e the existence of uncountable sets$ %till, according to the 5odel @xistence theore2, if our for2al set theory consistent, then there is a countable 2odel where all its axio2s and theore2s are true$ 7$e$ a theory pro!es the existence of uncountable sets, yet it has a countable 2odel; 7s this possible8 oes it 2ean that all for2al set theories are inconsistent8 #latonists put it as follows' any consistent axio2atic set theory has countable 2odels, hence, no axio2 syste2 can represent our SintendedS

1.= set theory /i$e$ the #latonist Sworld of setsS0 adeQuately$ 9or a for2alist, %kole2Bs #aradox is not a paradox at all$ 7 would rather call it %kole2Bs @ffect E like as the photo-effect, it is si2ply a striking $henomenon$ 7ndeed, let H be a countable 2odel of our for2al set theory$ 7n this theory, we can pro!e that the set r of all real nu2bers is uncountable, i$e$ ff /f is 1-1 function fro2 r into w0, /10 where w is the set of all natural nu2bers$ 1hat is the 2eaning of this theore2 in the countable 2odel H8 7nterpretations of r and w are subsets of the do2ain H, i$e$ they both are countable sets, i$e$ f /f is 1-1 function fro2 rH into wH0$ 7nterpretation of /10 in H is ff// f ,/ 0 and /f is 1-1 function fro2 rH into wH00$ Hence, the 2apping f of /20 does exist, yet it exists outside the model H; o you think that f of /20 S2ustS be located in the 2odel8 1hy8 7f you are li!ing /as an Sinternal obser!erS0 within the 2odel H, the set rH see2s uncountable to you /because you cannot find a 1-1 function fro2 r H into wH in your world H0$ %till, for 2e /an Sexternal obser!erS0 your uncountable r H is countable E in 2y world 7 ha!e a 1-1 function fro2 rH into wH; Hence, indeed, %kole2Bs #aradox represents si2ply a stri&ing phenomenon$ 7t is worth of knowing, yet there is no danger in it$
6dded 9ebruary +, 200=$ The inter-relationship of the <o2pleteness Theore2 and 5odel @xistence Theore2 can be represented in the following !ery general way$ *et us replace' - #redicate language * E by any set % of Sfor2ulasS$ - 9irst order theory T E by any Sfor2ulaS of % /assu2e, T contains only a finite nu2ber of axio2s, and take the con>uction of the20$ - The notion of interpretation E by any set 5 and a SpredicateS T/2, 90 /where 2 is 2e2ber of 5, and 9 E a for2ula of %0$ 7f you wish, you 2ay read T/2, 90 as S2 2akes 9 trueS, i$e$ 2 is a S2odelS of 9$ - The notion of pro!ability in the classical logic E by a SpredicateS #/90 /where 9 is a for2ula of %0$ 7f you wish, you 2ay read #/90 as S9 is pro!able in the classical logicS$ 6ssu2e, for a a set of Sfor2ulasS %, we ha!e any set 5 and any two SpredicatesS T/2, 90 and #/90 /where 2 is a 2e2ber of 5, and 9 E a for2ula of %0 such that only the following si2ple principles hold'

/20

1.C
a0 9or all 9, F S 5 7 F S b0 9or all m . /i$e$ % is closed under negation0$

and F S , T/2, 90 afT/2, f90$

c0 9or all F S , ff#/ff90 ` # /90$ >"om$leteness ;heorem>$ 9or all 9, 2 T/2, 90 ` #/90$ >Model #9istence ;heorem>$ 9or all 9, f#/f90 ` 2 T/2, 90$ ;heorem. 7f a, b, c0 hold, then the abo!e Stheore2sS are eQui!alent$ Proo!$ 10 6ssu2e 2 T/2, 90 ` #/90 for all 9$ Then f#/90 ` f2 T/2, 90, and by a0 also, f#/f90 ` f2 T/2, f90 ` 2fT/2, f90 ` 2 T/2, 90 by b0$ D$@$ $ 20 6ssu2e f#/f90 ` 2 T/2, 90 for all 9$Then f2 T/2, 90 ` ff#/f90, and by a0 also f2 T/2, f90 ` ff#/ff90$ Gy b0, 2 T/2, 90 ` 2 fT/2, f90 ` f2 T/2, f90 ` ff#/ff90 ` #/90 by c0$ D$@$ $

,.,. "onstructive Pro$ositional Logic E Kri$ke .emantics

%aul 6aron "ripke /born 1+-00$ S62erican logician and philosopher %aul "ripke is one of todayBs leading thinkers on thought and its 2anifold relations to the world$ His na2e is attached to ob>ects in se!eral fields of logic fro2 "ripke-#latek axio2s in higher recursion theory to the SGrouwer-"ripke sche2eS in intuitionistic 2athe2atics$ "ripke 2odels for 2odal logic, a disco!ery he 2ade in his teenage years, beca2e part of the standard !ocabulary of 2athe2atical logicians after his first article appeared in 1+,&, when he was >ust 2& years old$ "ripke 2odels and the results that depend upon the2 are cited today not only in philosophy and logic, but also in linguistics and co2puter science$$$S /The Aa:ette$ The newspaper of the Hohn Hopkins )ni!ersity, 5ay 12, 1++=, Vol$2,, ? &-0 .. Kri$ke /1+,&0$ %e2antical <onsiderations on 5odal *ogic, Acta Phi%osophica Fennica )1' C&-+-$ .. Kri$ke /1+,&0$ %e2antical analysis of 2odal logic$ 7$ ?or2al 2odal propositional calculi$ F( .ath( Logi& Gr$n+%( .ath(, +',=-+,, 1+,&$ .. Kri$ke /1+,.0$ %e2antical analysis of intuitionistic logic$ 7n' /( "( Cross%ey, .( A( E( ,$mmet e+s(!, Forma% systems an+ rec$rsi'e f$nctions $ 62sterda2, ?orth Holland, 1+,., pp$+2-12+$ 6s usual, let us assu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of Sato2icS for2ulas G 1,

1.+ G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 7nstead of si2ply co2puting truth !alues of 9 fro2 truth !alues of G 1, G2, $$$, Gn, "ripke proposed to consider the behavior of 9 when the truth !alues of G 1, G2, $$$, Gn are changing gradually !rom !alse to true according to so2e SscenarioS$ Thus, "ripke proposed to replace the classical se2antics /interpretation0 of the propositional connecti!es /defined by the classical truth tables0 by a 2ore co2plicated Sdyna2icS se2antics$ 7nstead of si2ply saying that f9 is true, iff 9 is false, let us say that, at so2e point in a scenario, f9 is true, if and only if, at this point, 9 is false and re2ains false, when truth !alues of G1, G2, $$$, Gn are changing according to the scenario$ *et o stand for i2plication, con>unction or dis>unction$ 7nstead of si2ply saying that 9oA is true, if and only if, 9oA is true according to the classical truth tables, let us say that, at so2e point in a scenario, 9oA is true, if and only if, at this point, it is true and re2ains true, when truth !alues of G 1, G2, $$$, Gn are changing according to the scenario$ #9am$le ,.,.). *et us consider the beha!ior of the classical axio2 * 11' B7 B in the scenario, where, at first, G is false, and at the next step it beco2es true' 0 -------------- 1 6t the starting point, G is false, fG also is false /here, for fG to be true, G 2ust re2ain false at the next step, but it doesnBt0$ This 2eans that, at the starting point, B7 B is false$ 6t the next step' G is true, hence, fG is false, but, of course, B7 B is true$ Thus, in "ripke scenarios, B7 B is not always true$ %urprisingly, so2e ti2e later /*e22a -$-$&0, we will deri!e fro2 this si2ple fact that G!fG cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic /we already know this fro2 %ection 2$C0$ #9am$le ,.,.0. *et us consider the beha!ior of the /only0 classically pro!able half of the 9irst de 5organ *aw' 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B in the scenario, where, at first 6 and G are both false, and at the next step, two branches appear in the scenario' in the first branch' 6 re2ains false, and G beco2es true, in the second branch' 6 beco2es true, and G re2ains false' U---01 00-U---------U---10 6t the starting point' 6 is false, f6 3 also is false /for f6 to be true, 6 2ust re2ain false at the next step, but in the second branch it doesnBt0$ %i2ilarly, at

1,0 the starting point' G is false, fG 3 also false /for fG to be true, G 2ust re2ain false at the next step, but in the first branch it doesnBt0$ This 2eans that, at the starting point, 7 ( A B ) is true /because A B is false, and it re2ains false in both branches0, and 7 A7 B is false, hence, 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B is false$ Thus, in "ripke scenarios, 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A7 B is not always true$ %urprisingly, so2e ti2e later /*e22a -$-$&0, we will deri!e fro2 this si2ple fact that the this half of the 9irst de 5organ *aw cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic$ 1e failed to do this in %ection 2$C; #9ercise ,.,.). 7n!estigate, in appropriate scenarios, the beha!ior of the following /only0 classically pro!able for2ulas' 77 ( A B ) 5 77 A7 7 B , /6`G0`//f6`G0`G0, ( A 5 B )( B 5 A) , and !erify that, in "ripke scenarios, these for2ulas are not always true$ %o2e ti2e later /*e22a -$-$&0, we will deri!e fro2 this si2ple fact that these for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic$ 1e failed to do this in %ection 2$C; /Hint' try the 2ost si2ple scenarios first' 00--01, 00-10, 00-11, etc$0 5ore precisely, the definition of the Kri$ke semantics for the propositional logic is as follows$ 6ssu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of Sato2icS for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 7nstead of considering truth !alues of 9 for all the possible tuples of truth !alues of G 1, G2, $$$, Gn, let us consider the beha!ior of 9 in all the possible "ripke scenarios, defined as follows$ De!inition o! Kri$ke scenarios$ @ach scenario s is a triple /b, c, t0 of the following ob>ects$ 9irst, b is a finite set of ob>ects called nodes /or, states0$ The second 2e2ber c is a partial ordering relationship between the nodes, i$e$ for all x , y , 3 b ' xcy ` /yc: ` xc:0 /transiti!ity0$ The third 2e2ber t of the tripple is a function /t 2eans StrueS0$ 7t associates with each node x a SgrowingS set t/x0 of Sato2icS for2ulas, i$e$ a subset of XG1, G2, $$$, GnY in such a way that for all x , y b ' x y 5 t ( x ) t ( y ) $ 6ote. 7n so2e other textbooks, "ripke scenarios are called Kri$ke models, or Kri$ke structures$ *et us say that Gi is true at the node x, if and only if G i is in the set t/x0$ 1e will denote this fact by x U^ G i /Sat x, Gi is trueS, or Sx forces GiS0$ %ince t is 2onotonic, if x U^ Gi , then y U^ Gi for all y after x, i$e$ for all y b such that

1,1 ydx$ 7$e$ if Gi is true at so2e node x, then Gi re2ains true at all nodes after x$ *et us define x U^ 9 /S9 is true at xS, or Sx forces 9S0 for any for2ula 9 that has been built of Sato2icS for2ulas G 1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ 1$ ?egation$ %uppose, the truth !alue of x U^ 9 is already defined for all x b $ Then x U^ f9 is defined to be true, if and only if, for all y O x b , y U^ 9 is false /i$e$ f/y U^ 90 is true according to the classical truth table of the negation connecti!e0$ 2$ 72plication, con>unction or dis>unction$ %uppose, the truth !alues of x U^ 9 and x U^ A are already defined for all x b $ Then x U^ 9oA is defined to be true, if and only if, for all y O x b , /y U^ 90o/y U^ A0 is true according to the classical truth table of the i2plication, con>unction or dis>unction connecti!e respecti!ely$ Lemma ,.,.). 9or any for2ula 9, any "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, and any node x b ' if x U^ 9, then y U^ 9 for all y b such that ydx$ 7$e$ if, in a "ripke scenario, a for2ula beco2es true at so2e node, then it re2ains true fore!er after this node$ Proo!. Gy induction$ Induction base$ %ee abo!e' if x U^ Gi , then y U^ Gi for all y after x, i$e$ for all y b such that ydx$ Induction ste$. ). 6egation. 6ssu2e, x U^ f9, i$e$, according to the classical truth table, not y U ^ 9 for all y O x b $ 7f ydx, then is y U^ f9 true or false8 Gy definition, y U^ f9 would be true, if and only if not : U^ 9 for all 3 O y b $ Gy transiti!ity of c, if :dy and ydx, then :dx$ Thus, by our assu2ption, if :dy, then not : U^ 9$ Hence, y U^ f9$ D$@$ $ 0. Im$lication, conBunction or disBunction. 6ssu2e, x U^ 9oA, i$e$, according to the corresponding classical truth table, /y U^ 90o/y U^ A0 is true for all y O x b $ 7f ydx, then is y U^ 9oA true or false8 Gy definition, y U^ 9oA would be true, if and only if /: U^90o/: U^ A0 would be true for all 3 O y b $ Gy transiti!ity of c, if :dy and ydx, then :dx$ Thus, by our assu2ption, if :dx, then /: U^ 90o/: U^ A0 is true$ Hence, y U^ 9oA$ D$@$ $ #9ercise ,.,.0. Verify that if x is a 2axi2al node in a scenario /b, c, t0, then x U^ 9, if and only if 9 is true at x according to the classical truth tables$ "ripke established that a !ormula is $rovable in the constructive $ro$ositional logic, i! and only i! it is true at all nodes in all Kri$ke scenarios.

1,2 ;heorem ,.,.0 (.. Kri$ke, com$leteness o! the constructive $ro$ositional logic). 6 for2ula 9 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic /i$e$ V* 1*10, 5#W U- 90, if and only if 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios$ 6s usual, the hard part of the proof is establishing that Strue is pro!ableS, i$e$ if 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios, then V* 1-*10, 5#W U- 9 /see <orollary -$-$= below0$ The easy part of the proof is, as usual, the soundness le22a' Lemma ,.,.+. 7f V*1-*10, 5#W U- 9, then 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios$ This le22a will follow fro2 Lemma ,.,.,. 7f 9 is any of the constructi!e axio2s * 1-*10, then, for any "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, and any node x b ' x U^ 9$ 7$e$ the constructi!e axio2s are true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios$ and Lemma ,.,./. 7f, in a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, at the node x b ' x U^ 9 and x U^ 9`A, then x U^ A$ Hence, if 9 and 9`A are true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios, then so is A$ Proo! o! Lemma ,.,.+$ 7ndeed, by *e22a -$-$-, all the constructi!e axio2s *1-*10 are true at all nodes in all scenarios, and, by *e22a -$-$., the 5odus #onens rule preser!es the property of being Strue at all nodes in all scenariosS$ D$@$ $ 6ote$ *et us return to the abo!e @xa2ple -$-$2 and @xercise -$-$1$ 1e established that for2ulas 7 ( A B ) 5 7 A 7 B 4 77 ( A B ) 5 77 A7 7 B 4 /6`G0`//f6`G0`G0 are not true at all nodes in all scenarios$ Hence, by *e22a -$-$&, these for2ulas cannot be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic V* 1-*10, 5#W$ 1e failed to pro!e this in %ection 2$C; Proo! o! Lemma ,.,./. 1e know that x U^ 9`A 2eans that /y U^ 90`/y U^ A0 is true /according to the classical truth table0 for all y O x b $ Gy *e22a -$-$1, we know that y U^ 9 for all y O x b $ Hence, if y U^ A would be false, then /y U^ 90`/y U^ A0 also would be false$ Hence, x U^ A$ D$@$ $ Proo! o! Lemma ,.,.,. L)? 'F("F')

1,& x U^ G`/<`G0 is true, if and only if /y U^ G0`/y U^ <`G0 is true for all ydx$ x U^ G`/<`G0 is false, if and only if /y U^ G0`/y U^ <`G0 is false for so2e ydx$ How could /y U^ G0`/y U^ <`G0 be false for so2e ydx8 6ccording to the classical i2plication truth table, this could be only, if and only if y U^ G is true, and y U^ <`G is false$ y U^ <`G is true, if and only if /: U^ <0`/: U^ G0 is true for all :dy$ y U^ <`G is false, if and only if /: U^ <0`/: U^ G0 is false for so2e :dy$ How could /: U^ <0`/: U^ G0 be false for so2e :dy8 6ccording to the classical i2plication truth table, this could be, if and only if : U^ < is true, and : U^ G is false$ %u22ary' x U^ G`/<`G0 is false if and only if ydx /y SW ' is true and y U^ <`G is false0 if and only if :dy /: U^ < is true and = SW ' is !alse0 Hence, if x U^ G`/<`G0 is false, then there are y and : such that' xcyc:, y SW ' is true, : U^ < is true, and = SW ' is !alse$ Gy *e22a -$-$1, if yc: and y U^ G is true, then : U^ G is true$ <ontradiction with S: U^ G is falseS$ Thus, x U^ G`/<`G0 is true$ L)I? R'F('F") x U^ fG`/G`<0 is false, if and only if /y U^ fG0`/y U^ G`<0 is false for so2e ydx, i$e$ if and only if y U^ fG is true, and y U^ G`< is false$ y U^ fG is true, if and only if : U^G is false for all :dy$ y U^ G`< is false, if and only if /: U^ G0`/: U^ <0 is false for so2e :dy, i$e$ if and only if : U^ G is true, and : U^ < is false$ %u22ary' x U^ fG`/G`<0 is false if and only if ydx /y U^ fG is true and y U^ G`< is false0 if and only if if and only if :dy /= SW' is !alse0 :dy /= SW ' is true and : U^ < is false0 Hence, if x U^ fG`/G`<0 is false, then there is ydx such that' a0 :dy / = SW' is !alse0, and b0 :dy /= SW ' is true). <ontradiction$ Thus, x U^ fG`/G`<0 is true$

1,L+? B C B x U^ BC 5 B is false if and only if ydx /y U^ BC is true and y SW ' is !alse0 if and only if :dy (= SW' is true and : U^ < is true0 Hence, there is y such that xcy and y U^ G is false$ 9ro2 :dy (: U^G is true0 we obtain that y U^ G is true$ <ontradiction$ Thus, x U^ BC 5 C is true$ L,?
B C C

%i2ilarly$ L/? B (C BC ) x U^ B 5 ( C 5 BC ) is false if and only if ydx /y SW' is true and y U^ C 5 BC is false0 if and only if :dy (= SW" is true and = SW B C is !alse0 Hence, there are y, : such that xcyc:, y U^ G is true, and : U^ < is true, and = SW BC is !alse$ Then, by *e22a -$-$1, /u U^ G is true0and/u U^ <0 for all ud:$ 7$e$ = SW BC is true$ <ontradiction$ Thus, x U^ B 5 ( C 5 BC ) is true$ L1? B BC x U^ B 5 BC is false if and only if ydx /y SW' is true and y U^ BC is false0 if and only if :dy /= SW ' is !alse and : U^ < is false0 Hence, there are y, : such that xcyc:, y U^ G is true, and : U^ G is false$ Gy *e22a -$-$1, this is a contradiction$ Thus, x U^ B 5 BC is true$ L2? C BC %i2ilarly$ LG? ( B D ) (( C D) ( BC D)) x U^ ( B 5 , ) 5 (( C 5 , ) 5 ( B C 5 ,)) is false if and only if ydx /y SW'FD is true and y U^ ( C 5 ,) 5 ( BC 5 , ) is false0 if and only if

1,. :dy /= SW "FD is true and : U^ BC 5 , is false0 if and only if ud: /u U^ BC is true and u SW D is !alse0 Hence, there are y, :, u such that xcyc:cu, y U^ G` is true, : U^ <` is true, and u U^ is false$ Gy *e22a -$-$1, u U^ G` is true, and u U^ <` is true$ Thus, if u U^ G would be true, then u U^ also would be true$ Hence, u U^ G is false$ %i2ilarly, u U^ < also is false$ Hence, u U^ BC is false$ Gut we know that it is true$ <ontradiction$ Thus, x U^ *C is true$ L0? ('F("FD))F(('F")F('FD)) x U^ /G`/<` 00`//G`<0`/G` 00 is false if and only if ydx /y U^ G`/<` 0 is true and y U^ /G`<0`/G` 0 is false0 if and only if if and only if :dy //: U^ G0`/: U^ <` 00 :dy /: SW G`< is true and : U^ G` is false0 if and only if if and only if ud: //u U^ G0`/u U^ <00 ud: /u U^ G is true and u U^ is false0 Hence, there are y, :, u such that xcyc:cu, u U^ G is true and u SW D is !alse$ 9ro2 ud: //u U^ G0`/u U^ <00 we obtain that u U^< also is true, and fro2 :dy //: U^ G0`/: U^ <` 00 3 that : U^ <` is true$ Then, by *e22a -$-$1, u U^ <` also is true, i$e$ !du //! U^ <0`/! U^ 00, in particular, /u U^ <0`/u U^ 0$ Hence, uSW D is true$ <ontradiction$ Thus, x U^ *2 is true$ L*? ('F")F(('FR")FR') x U^ /G`<0`//G`f<0`fG0 is false if and only if ydx /y U^ G`< is true and y U^ /G`f<0`fG is false0 if and only if if and only if =Xy ((= SW ')F(= SW ")) :dy /: U^ G`f< is true and : U^ fG is false0 if and only if if and only if uX= ((u SW ')F(u SW R")) ud: /u SW ' is true0 Hence, there are y, :, u such that xcyc:cu , and u SW ' is true$ 9ro2 =Xy ((= S W ')F(= SW ")) we obtain that u U^ < is true$ 9ro2 uX= ((u SW ')F(u SW R")) we obtain that u U^ f< is true, i$e$ ! U^ < is false for so2e !du$ Gy *e22a -$-$1, if u U^ < is true, then ! U^ < is true$ <ontradiction with S! U^ < is falseS$ Hence, x U^ *+ is true$ #9ercise ,.,.+. Verify that, in the abo!e recursi!e definition of x U^ 9, the ite2 2$ 72plication, con>unction or dis>unction' x U^ 9oA is defined to be true, if

1,, and only if, according to the classical truth tables, /y U^ 90o/y U^ A0 is true for all y O x b $ could be replaced by 2a$ 72plication /Snon-2onotonicS connecti!e0' x U^ 9`A is defined to be true, if and only if, according to the classical truth tables, /y U^ 90`/y U^ A0 is true for all y O x b $ 2b$ <on>unction or dis>unction /S2onotonicS connecti!es0' x U^ 9oA is defined to be true, if and only if, according to the classical truth tables, /x U^ 90o/x U^ A0 is true$ @nd of @xercise -$-$&$ ;he &ard Part o! the Proo! ?ow, let us try pro!ing that, if 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios, then 9 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic0$ 1e will follow the paper by Kudith nder:ood. 6 constructi!e <o2pleteness #roof for 7ntuitionistic #ropositional <alculus$ T(-+0-11=+, ece2ber 1++0, ,epartment of Comp$ter Science, Corne%% 2ni'ersity$ based on the contructions fro2 Melvin <itting$ 7ntuitionistic *ogic, 5odel Theory and 9orcing$ ?orthHolland, 62sterda2, 1+,+ The s2art idea is to generali=e the $roblem in the following way$ 7nstead of considering constructi!e pro!ability of single for2ulas, let us consider the constructi!e pro!ability of 1, 2, $$$, 2 U- C 1C 2$$$ C n for arbitrary for2ulas 1, 2, $$$, 2, <1, <2, $$$, <n, i$e$ let us consider ordered pairs of sets /X 1, 2, $$$, 2Y, X<1, <2, $$$, <nY0$ *et us call such pairs se@uents$ 7f %1, %2 are sets of for2ulas /%1 2ay be e2pty0, let us call the seQuent /% 1, %20 constructi!ely pro!able, if and only if V*1-*10, 5#W' %1 U- V%2, where V%2 denotes the dis>unction of for2ulas contained in %2$ 5oreo!er, let us consider sets o! se@uents$ This will allow to carry out a specific induction argu2ent /considering single for2ulas or single seQuents does not allow such an argu2ent;0$ *et us say that a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0 contains a countere9am$le for the seQuent /%1, %20, if and only if the seQuent is false at so2e node in the scenario /or, 2ore precisely, if and only if there is x b such that x U^ 9 for all

1,= for2ulas F S 1 and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2 0$ 6dditionally, let us use <orollary ,$1$2/b0 of Theore2 ,$1$1 to replace all negations f9 by 9`f, where f is an ato2ic for2ula, which is Salways falseS, i$e$ which, in a seQuent /% 1, %20, ne!er belongs to %1$ Thus, for2ulas 2entioned in the proof of the following Theore2 -$-$, do not contain negations /but they 2ay contain the specific ato2ic for2ula f0$ ;heorem ,.,.1. 9or any set % of seQuents, either so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able, or there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains counterexa2ples for each seQuent in %$ Proo!. *et us start with a $roo! overvie:$ 1e will consider the following cases' "ase ). % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 1( A S 1 B S 1) $ *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the S2issingS for2ulas 6, G to %1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by / S 1{ A , B } , %20$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$$$ "ase 0. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 2( A S 2 B S 2 ) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to %2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by /%1, S 2{ A } 0$ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to %2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by /%1, S 2{ B } 0$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$$$ "ase +. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 1( A S 1 B S 1) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to %1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by / S 1{ A } , %20$ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to %1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by / S 1{ B } , %20$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$$$ "ase ,. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 2( A S 2 B S 2) $ *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the S2issingS for2ulas 6, G to %2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by /%1, S 2{ A , B } 0$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$$$ "ase /. % contains /%1, %20 such that A 5 B S 1( A S 2 B S 1 ) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to %2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by /%1, S 2{ A } 0$ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to %1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by / S 1{ B } , %20$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$$$

1,C "ase 1. % contains /%1, %20 such that A 5 B S 2 and for e!ery seQuent ( T 1, T 2 ) S , ( S 1T 1 A T 1 B T 2) $ *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the seQuent / S 1{ A } , G0 to it$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$$$ "ase 2. ?one of the abo!e cases hold for %$ Then, Theore2 is true for % 3 easy to !erify$$$ The first six cases represent the induction argu2ent' pro!ing of Theore2 for a seQuent set % is reduced to pro!ing it for so2e other sets 3 %B and %S$ Gy iterating this reduction, we always arri!e happily to the <ase =, where Theore2 is easy to !erify$ 7ndeed, let us denote by $ni'erse ( S 1, S 2 ) the set of all for2ulas and subfor2ulas /of the for2ulas0 contained in S 1 S 2 $ *et us denote by $ni'erse ( S ) the union of the uni!erses of seQuents fro2 %$ #9ercise ,.,.,$ Verify that' a0 1hen, in the <ases 1-., the seQuent /%1, %20 is replaced by so2e other seQuent /T1, T20, then $ni'erse (T 1, T 2 )$ni'erse ( S 1, S 2) $ b0 1hen, in the <ase ,, because of the seQuent /% 1, %20, the seQuent ( S 1{ A } , B ) is added to %, then
$ni'erse ( S 1{ A } , B ) $ni'erse ( S 1, S 2) $

c0 9or a gi!en $ni'erse ( S ) , there exist no 2ore than " = 2$ni'erse ( S )+1 different seQuents /%1, %20 such that $ni'erse ( S; , S9) P $ni'erse ( S ) $ 6nd, no 2ore than 2? different sets of seQuents$ Thus, any chain of iterated <ases 1-, cannot be longer than 2 ?\1 3 either we will arri!e at a set of seQuents already built at a pre!ious step, or we will arri!e at the <ase =$ ?ow 3 the proof as it should be$ "ase ). % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 1( A S 1 B S 1) $ *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the S2issingS for2ulas 6, G to %1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1{ A , B } , S 2) $ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B is constructi!ely pro!able, then it is ( S 1{ A , B } , S 2) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ 7f

1,+ ( S 1{ A , B } , S 2) is constructi!ely pro!able, then so is /%1, %20$ 7ndeed, if S 1{ A , B } U- V%2 is constructi!ely pro!able, how to pro!e %1 U- V%28 %ince %1 contains A B , by axio2s *& and *& we can deri!e 6 and G$ 6fter this, we can apply the proof of S 1{ A , B } U- V%2$ Hence, %1 U- V%2 is constructi!ely pro!able$ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7ndeed, a seQuent in % is either /%1, %20, or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %B, i$e$ /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple for it$ oes /b, c, t0 contain a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %208 1e know that it contains a counterexa2ple for ( S 1{ A , B } , S 2) , i$e$ for so2e x b , x U^ 9 for all for2ulas F S 1{ A , B } and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2 $ Hence, /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %20$ D$@$ $ "ase 0. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 2( A S 2 B S 2 ) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to % 2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1 , S 2 { A}) $ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to % 2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1 , S 2 {B }) $ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B and so2e seQuent of %BB is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %B is ( S 1 , S 2 { A}) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %BB is ( S 1 , S 2 {B }) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ %o, let us consider the situation, when ( S 1 , S 2 { A}) and ( S 1 , S 2 {B }) both are constructi!ely pro!able$ 7f %1 U- A S 2 and %1 U- B S 2 both are constructi!ely pro!able, how to pro!e %1 U- V%2 /we know that %2 contains A B 08 Gy Theore2 2$&$1, con>unction is distributi!e to dis>unction' V*1-*C, 5#W' U- ( A B )C 6 ( A C )( B C ) $ Hence, V*1-*C, 5#W' ( A S 2)( B S 2 ) 5 ( A B )S 2 $ %o, let us 2erge the

1=0 proofs of %1 U- A S 2 and %1 U- B S 2 , and let us append the proof of Theore2 2$&$1$ Thus, we ha!e obtained a proof of %1 U- ( A B)S 2 $ 9ro2 %ection 2$& we know that in V*1-*C, 5#W dis>unction is associati!e, co22utati!e and ide2potent$ 6nd, by (eplace2ent *e22a 1/e0' V*1-*C, 5#W 6aG U- AC 6 B C $ %ince %2 contains A B , these facts allow, fro2 a proof of %1 U- ( A B)S 2 , to deri!e a proof of %1 U- V%2$ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7ndeed, a seQuent in % is either /%1, %20, or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %B, i$e$ /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple for it$ oes /b, c, t0 contain a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %208 1e know that it contains a counterexa2ple for ( S 1 , S 2 { A}) , i$e$ for so2e x b , x U^ 9 for all for2ulas F S 1 and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2{ A} $ Hence, /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %20$ D$@$ $ 7f there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %BB, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ The argu2ent is si2ilar to the abo!e$ "ase +. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 1( A S 1 B S 1) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to % 1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1{ A } , S 2 ) $ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to % 1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) $ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B and so2e seQuent of %BB is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %B is ( S 1{ A } , S 2 ) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %BB is ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ %o, let us consider the situation, when ( S 1{ A } , S 2 ) and ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) both are constructi!ely pro!able$ *et us recall the @xercise 2$&$2 V*1, *2, *C, 5#W' if 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U, and

1=1 61, 62, $$$, 6n, < U- , then 61, 62, $$$, 6n , BC U- $ Thus, if S 1{ A } UV%2 and S 1{ B } U- V%2 both are constructi!ely pro!able, then /since % 1 contains A B 0 so is %1)XGYU- V%2$ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7ndeed, a seQuent in % is either /%1, %20, or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %B, i$e$ /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple for it$ oes /b, c, t0 contain a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %208 1e know that it is contains counterexa2ple for ( S 1{ A } , S 2 ) , i$e$ for so2e x b , x U^ 9 for all for2ulas F S 1{ A} and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2 $ Hence, /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %20$ D$@$ $ 7f there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %BB, then it is also contains counterexa2ple for each seQuents in %$ The argu2ent is si2ilar to the abo!e$ "ase ,. % contains /%1, %20 such that A B S 2( A S 2 B S 2) $ *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the S2issingS for2ulas 6, G to %2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1 , S 2 { A , B }) $ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B is constructi!ely pro!able, then it is ( S 1 , S 2{ A , B }) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ 7f ( S 1 , S 2{ A , B }) is constructi!ely pro!able, then so is /%1, %20$ 7ndeed, if %1U- ( A B )S 2 is constructi!ely pro!able, how to pro!e %1 U- V%2 /where %2 contains A B 08 9ro2 %ection 2$& we know that in V*1-*C, 5#W dis>unction is associati!e, co22utati!e and ide2potent$ 6nd, by (eplace2ent *e22a 1/e0' V*1-*C, 5#W 6aG U- AC 6 B C $ %ince that %2 contains 6!G, these facts allow, fro2 a proof of %1 U- ( A B )S 2 , to deri!e a proof of %1 U- V%2$ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7ndeed, a seQuent in % is either /%1, %20, or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %B, i$e$ /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple for it$ oes /b, c, t0 contain a counterexa2ple also for /% 1,

1=2 %208 1e know that it contains a counterexa2ple for ( S 1 , S 2{ A , B }) , i$e$ for so2e x b , x U^ 9 for all for2ulas F S 1 and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2{ A , B } $ Hence, /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple also for /%1, %20$ D$@$ $ 7f there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %BB, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ The argu2ent is si2ilar to the abo!e$ "ase /. % contains /%1, %20 such that A 5 B S 1( A S 2 B S 1 ) $ *et us consider the following two sets' a0 %B 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula 6 to % 2, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1 , S 2 { A}) $ b0 %BB 3 obtained fro2 % by adding the for2ula G to % 1, i$e$ by replacing /%1, %20 by ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) $ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B and %BB, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B and so2e seQuent of %BB is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %B is ( S 1 , S 2{ A}) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ The seQuent of %BB is ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ %o, let us consider the situation, when ( S 1 , S 2{ A}) and ( S 1{ B } , S 2 ) both are constructi!ely pro!able$ 1e ha!e two proofs' %1 U- A S 2 and %1, G U- V%2, and we know that %1 contains 6`G$ How to deri!e a proof of %1 U- V%28 %ince %1 contains 6`G, we ha!e a proof of % 1, 6 U- G$ Together with %1, G UV%2 this yields a proof of %1, 6 U- V%2$ Rf course, V%2 U- V%2$ ?ow, let us recall the @xercise 2$&$2 V*1, *2, *C, 5#W' 7f 61, 62, $$$, 6n, G U- , and 61, 62, $$$, 6n, < U- , then 6 1, 62, $$$, 6n , BC U- $ Thus, %1, A S 2 U- V%2$ %ince we ha!e a proof of %1 UA S 2 , we ha!e also a proof of %1 U- A S 2 $ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7ndeed, a seQuent in % is either /%1, %20, or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %B, i$e$ /b, c, t0 contains a

1=& counterexa2ple for it$ oes /b, c, t0 contain a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %208 1e know that it contains a counterexa2ple for ( S 1 , S 2{ A}) , i$e$ for so2e x b , x U^ 9 for all for2ulas F S 1 and not x U^ A for all for2ulas G S 2{ A} $ Hence, /b, c, t0 contains a counterexa2ple also for /% 1, %20$ D$@$ $ 7f there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %BB, then it contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ The argu2ent is si2ilar to the abo!e$ "ase 1. % contains /%1, %20 such that A 5 B S 2 and for e!ery seQuent ( T 1, T 2 ) S , ( S 1T 1 A T 1 B T 2) . *et us consider the set %B obtained fro2 % by adding the seQuent ( S;2 A , B ) to it$ *et us !erify that if Theore2 is true for %B, then it is true for %$ 6ssu2e, so2e seQuent of %B is constructi!ely pro!able, then it is ( S 1{ A } , B ) or so2e other seQuent$ 7f it is so2e other seQuent, then it belongs to %, i$e$ so2e seQuent of % is constructi!ely pro!able$ 7f ( S 1{ A } , B ) is constructi!ely pro!able, then so is /%1, %20$ 7ndeed, if %1, 6 U- G is constructi!ely pro!able, then, by eduction Theore2 1, % 1 U- 6`G, and %1 U- V%2 /since %2 contains 6`G0$ Rn the other side, if there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %B, then, since % is a subset of %B, this scenario contains also a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ "ase 2. ?one of the abo!e cases hold for %$ Hence, for e!ery seQuent ( S 1 , S 2 ) S the following holds' 10 7f A B S 1 , then A S 1 B S 1 , 20 7f &0 7f A B S 2 , then A S 2 B S 2 , A B S 1 , then A S 1 B S 1 ,

-0 7f A B S 2 , then A S 2 B S 2 , .0 7f A 5 B S 1 , then A S 2 B S 1 , ,0 7f A 5 B S 2 , then there is

( T; , T9 ) S such that S 1T 1 A T 2 B T 2 $
9or this kind of seQuent sets we ha!e a !ery si2ple situation' a0 7f, in so2e seQuent ( S 1 , S 2 ) S the sets %1, %2 contain the sa2e for2ula 6, then fro2 *,' A 5 A B we can deri!e easily that V* 1-*C, 5#W' %1 U-

1=V%2$ b0 7f the sets %1, %2 are dis>oint for all seQuents ( S 1 , S 2 ) S , then we 2ust /and will0 build a scenario, containing a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ %o, let us suppose that the sets %1, %2 are dis>oint for all seQuents ( S 1, S 2 ) S , and let us define the following "ripke scenario /b, c, t0' b ^ %, xcy 2ust be defined for e!ery two 2e2bers x, y of b, i$e$ for e!ery two seQuents /%1, %20 and /T1, T20 in %$ *et us define /%1, %20 c /T1, T20, if and only if S 1T 1 $ Rf course, G G is a partial ordering of b$ t 2ust be a 2onotonic 2apping fro2 2e2bers of b to sets of ato2ic for2ulas$ *et us define t/%1, %20 as the set of all ato2ic for2ulas in % 1$ Rf course, t is 2onotonic for G G $ /6nd, of course, f 3 our ato2ic SfalseS, ne!er belongs to t/%1, %200$ Thus, /b, c, t0 is a "ripke scenario$ *et us pro!e that it contains a counterexa2ple for each seQuent in %$ 7n fact, we will pro!e that for each seQuent ( S 1 , S 2 ) S , and each for2ula 9' 7f F S 1 , then /%1, %20 U^ 9$ 7f F S 2 , then not /%1, %20 U^ 9$ This will 2ean that, /%1, %20 represents a counterexa2ple for /%1, %20$ Rf course, our proof will be by induction along the structure of the for2ula 9$ a0 9 is an ato2ic for2ula$ 7f F S 1 , then F t (T 1, T 2 ) for %20c/T1, T20$ Hence, /%1, %20 U^ 9$ F t ( S 1, S 2 ) , i$e$ not /%1, %20 U^ 9$ b0 9 is A B $ 7f F S 1 , then, by /10, A S 1 B S 1 $ Hence, by induction assu2ption, /%1, %20 U^ 6 and /%1, %20 U^ G, i$e$, by @xercise -$-$&, /%1, %20 U^ A B $ 7f F S 2 , then, by /20, A S 2 B S 2 $ 7f A S 2 , then, by induction assu2ption, not /%1, %20 U^ 6, i$e$, by @xercise -$-$&, not /% 1, %20 U^ A B $ 7f B S 2 3 the argu2ent is si2ilar$ e!ery ( T 1 , T 2 ) S such that /%1,

7f F S 2 , then, since %1 and %2 are dis>oint sets, F S 1 , and

1=. c0 9 is A B $ 7f F S 1 , then, by /&0, A S 1 B S 1 $ 7f A S 1 , then, by induction assu2ption, /%1, %20 U^ 6, i$e$, by @xercise -$-$&, /% 1, %20 U^ A B $ 7f B S 1 3 the argu2ent is si2ilar$ 7f F S 2 , then, by /-0, A S 2 B S 2 $ Gy induction assu2ption, not /%1, %20 U^ 6 and not /%1, %20 U^ G, i$e$, by @xercise -$-$&, not /%1, %20 U^ A B $ d0 9 is 6`G$ d10 F S 1 $ 1e 2ust pro!e that /%1, %20 U^ 6`G, i$e$ that /T1, T20 U^ 6`G for each ( T 1 , T 2 ) S such that /%1, %20c/T1, T20$ %o, let us assu2e that not /T1, T20 U^ 6`G, i$e$ that /)1, )20 U^ 6 and not /)1, )20 U^ G for so2e ( 2 1, 2 2) S such that /T1, T20c /)1, )20$ %ince A 5 B S 1 , then also A 5 B 2 1 , and, by /.0, A 2 2 B 2 1 $ Gy induction assu2ption, this 2eans that not /) 1, )20 U^ 6 or /)1, )20 U^ G$ <ontradiction, hence, /%1, %20 U^ 6`G$ d20 F S 2 $ 1e 2ust pro!e that not /%1, %20 U^ 6`G, i$e$ that there is ( T 1, T 2 ) S such that /%1, %20c/T1, T20 and /T1, T20 U^ 6 and not /T1, T20 U^ G$ %ince A 5 B S 2 , by /,0, there is ( T 1, T 2 ) S such that /%1, %20c/T1, T20 and A T 1 and B T 2 $ Gy induction assu2ption, this 2eans that /T1, T20 U^ 6 and not /T1, T20 U^ G$ D$@$ $ This co2pletes the proof of Theore2 -$-$,$ 6ote. The abo!e proof contains an algorithm allowing to find, for each set % of seQuents, either a constructi!e proof of so2e seQuent of %, or a "ripke scenario containing counterexa2ples for each seQuent of %$ "orollary ,.,.2. 7f a for2ula 9 is true at all nodes in all scenarios, then V*1-*10, 5#W U- 9 /i$e$ 9 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic0$ 7ndeed, let us consider the set of seQuents X/0, X9Y0Y consisting of a single seQuent /0, X9Y0, where 0 is e2pty set$ Gy Theore2 -$-$,, either the seQuent /0, X9Y0 is constructi!ely pro!able, or there is a "ripke scenario /b, c, t0, which contains a counterexa2ple for /0, X9Y0$ %ince 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios, it cannot ha!e counterexa2ples4 hence, the seQuent /0, X9Y0 /i$e$ the for2ula 90 is constructi!ely pro!able$

1=, Together with *e22a -$-$& this <orollary i2plies the abo!e Theore2 -$-$2 3 Kri$keJs theorem on the com$leteness o! the constructive $ro$ositional logic' a for2ula 9 is true at all nodes in all "ripke scenarios, if and only if 9 is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic$ "orollary ,.,.G (decidability o! the constructive $ro$ositional logic). There is an algorithm allowing to deter2ine for any for2ula 9, is this for2ula pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic V*1-*10, 5#W, or not$ Aerhard Aent:en established this fact in 1+&-' 7. 7ent=en$ )ntersuchungen gber das logische %chliessen 77$ .athematische Feitschrift, 1+&-, Vol$ &+, pp$ -0.--&1$ "orollary ,.,.*$ 7f F G is true at all nodes in all scenarios, then 9 is true at all nodes in all scenarios, or A is true at all nodes in all scenarios$ Proo!. 6ssu2e, there is a scenario /b1, c1, t10 such that x1 U^ 9 is false for so2e x 1 b1 , and a scenario /b2, c2, t20 such that x2 U^ A is false for so2e x 2 b2 $ 1e 2ay assu2e that the /node0 sets b 1 and b2 do not intersect$ *et us 2erge these scenarios by adding a new co22on starting node x 0, where all Gi are false$ Then, x0 U^ 9 is false /*e22a -$-$10, and x0 U^ A is false /si2ilarly0$ Hence, according to the classical dis>unction truth table, x 0 U^ F G is false$ Gut, x U^ F G is always true$ Hence, x U^ 9 is always true, or x U^ A is always true$ D$@$ $ ;heorem ,.,.)I. /AFdel V1+&2W0$ 7f V*1-*10, 5#W' U- BC , then V*1-*10, 5#W' U- G or V*1-*10, 5#W' U- <$ /7$e$ if the dis>unction BC is constructi!ely pro!able, then one of the for2ulas G, < also is constructi!ely pro!able$0 Proo!. 7f V*1-*10, 5#W' U- BC , then, by "ripkeBs <o2pleteness Theore2 -$-$2, BC is true at all nodes in all scenarios$ Then, by <orollary -$-$+, so is G or so is <$ Gy "ripkeBs <o2pleteness Theore2 -$-$2, this 2eans that one of the for2ulas G, < is constructi!ely pro!able$ D$@$ $ *et us recall the constructi!e interpretation of dis>unction fro2 %ection 1$&' - To pro!e BC constructi!ely, you 2ust pro!e G, or pro!e <$ To pro!e BC classically, you 2ay assu2e ( BC ) as a hypothesis, and deri!e a contradiction$ Ha!ing only such a Snegati!eS proof, you 2ay be unable to deter2ine, which part of the dis>unction BC is true 3 G, or <, or both$ 6ccording to Theore2 -$-$10, the constructi!e propositional logic V* 1-*10, 5#W supports the constructi!e interpretation of dis>unction$

1== "$AFdel established this fact in 1+&2' K. 7Mdel$ Lu2 intuitionistischen 6ussagenkalkgl$ A&a+emie +er Bissenschaften in Bien, .athematisch> nat$r-issenschaft%iche C%asse, An3eiger, 1+&2, Vol$,+, pp$,.-,,$ #9ercise ,.,./ /for s2art students0$ Gy adding the sche2a ( B 5 C )( C 5 B ) to the axio2s of the constructi!e logic, we obtain the so-called GN+e%>,$mmett %ogic$ Verify, that a propositional for2ula 9 is pro!able in AFdel- u22ett logic, if and only if 9 is true at all nodes in all linear "ripke scenarios /i$e$ in the scenarious that do not allow branching0$ %ee also 7ntuitionistic *ogic by Hoan 5oscho!akis in %tanford @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy, and 5ichael u22ett in 7nternet @ncyclopedia of #hilosophy$

1=C

/. 6ormal <orms. %esolution Method

7n this section, we will try to produce a practical 2ethod allowing to deri!e conseQuences and pro!e theore2s by using co2puters$ 7n general, this task is not feasible because of its enor2ous co2putational co2plexity /see %ection -$&0$ %till, for proble2s of a Spractical si:eS /arising, for exa2ple, in deducti!e databases and other artificial intelligence syste2s, or, trying to for2ali:e real 2athe2atical proofs0, such 2ethods are possible and so2e of the2 are already i2ple2ented successfully$ 3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; Main Ideas 7f 91, $$$, 9n is the set of our assu2ptions /facts, rules, axio2s, hypotheses etc$0, does the assertion A follow fro2 this set8 Rne of the well known approaches to pro!ing theore2s in 2athe2atics 3 and especially con!enient for co2puters 3 are the so-called re!utation $roo!s /re+$ctio a+ abs$r+$m0 3 proofs by deri!ing a contradiction' assu2e fA, and deri!e a contradiction$ 7$e$ pro!e that 91, $$$, 9n, fA is an inconsistent set of assu2ptions$ Idea V)? let us deri!e conseQuences and pro!e theore2s only in this :ay$ *et us try de!eloping the best possible 2ethod of deri!ing contradictions fro2 inconsistent sets of assu2ptions$ This /at first glance 3 tri!ial0 decision is one of the 2ost i2portant steps in the whole story 3 it will allow /see %ection .$2 below0 con!ersion of the for2ulas 91, $$$, 9n, fA into a for2 that does not contain existential Quantifiers$ 6nd after this, ha!ing uni!ersal Quantifiers only, we 2ay si2ply drop the2 at all, and continue working with Quantifier-free for2ulas /see %ection .$-0$ Idea V0' let us Snor2ali:eS our assu2ptions as far as possible$ The first step /idea V0a0 is here reducing to the so-called $rene9 normal !orm 3 2o!ing all the Quantifiers to left$ 9or exa2ple, the for2ula V/xG/x0 ` x</x00 ` x /x0W ` x9/x0 is eQui!alent /in the classical logic;0 to the following for2ula in prenex nor2al for2' x1x2x&x-VV/G/x10 ` </x200 ` /x&0W ` 9/x-0W$ /1hen 2o!ing Quantifiers to left, so2e of the2 2ust be changed fro2 to , or fro2 to , see %ection .$1 below$0

1=+ The second step /idea V0b, due to Thoralf %kole20 allows eli2ination of existential Quantifiers$ 7ndeed, x1x2 2eans that x2^f/x10, and x1x&x2eans that x-^g/x1, x&0, where f and g are so2e functions /see %ection .$20$ 7n this way we obtain the so-called .kolem normal !orm, containing uni!ersal Quantifiers only' x1x&VV/G/x10 ` </f/x1000 ` /x&0W ` 9/g/x1, x&00W$ ?ote that a for2ula and its %kole2 nor2al for2 are not e@uivalent /e!en in the classical logic;0, they are only a kind of Sse2i-eQui!alentS' a set of for2ulas is inconsistent, if and only if so is the set of their %kole2 nor2al for2s$ ?ow, since, our for2ulas contain uni!ersal Quantifiers only, we 2ay dro$ these @uanti!iers /si2ply by assu2ing that all free !ariables are uni!ersally Quantified0' V/G/x10 ` </f/x1000 ` /x&0W ` 9/g/x1, x&00$ The third step /idea V0c0 3 reduction of Quantifier-free for2ulas to the socalled conBunctive normal !orm /a con>unction of dis>unctions of ato2ic for2ulas 3 with or without negations, see %ection .$&0$ 9or exa2ple, the abo!e for2ula can be reduced to the following for2' /fG/x10 ! </f/x100 ! 9/g/x1, x&000 I /f /x&0 ! 9/g/x1, x&000$ Gy assu2ing that a set of for2ulas is eQui!alent to their con>unction, we can drop the con>unction/s0 obtaining a set of the so-called clauses' fG/x10 ! </f/x100 ! 9/g/x1, x&00, f /x&0 ! 9/g/x1, x&00$ @ach clause is a dis>unctions of ato2ic for2ulas 3 with or without negations$ 7n this way, instead of our initial set of assu2ptions 9 1, $$$, 9n, fA, we obtain a set of clauses /Mlarge cloud of si2ple dis>unctionsN0 , which is inconsistent, if and only if so is the set 91, $$$, 9n, fA$ The last step 3 how to work with a set of clauses /Mlarge cloud of si2ple dis>unctionsN08 Idea V+ /due to Hohn 6lan (obinson, see %ection .$. and .$=0 3 a set of clauses is inconsistent, if and only if a contradiction can be deri!ed fro2 it by using ter2 substitution and the so-called resolution rule' 9 ! ", R" ! A ----------------$ 9!A

1C0 <ontinue reading$$$

/.). Prene9 6ormal <orm

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; *et us consider an interpretation H of so2e predicate language *, such that the do2ain H contains an infinite set of Sob>ectsS$ )nder such interpretation, the S2eaningS of for2ulas containing Quantifiers 2ay be 2ore or less nonconstructi!e, or, at least, Sconstructi!ely difficultS$ 9or exa2ple, the for2ula xG/x0 will be true, if G/x0 will be true for all Sob>ectsS x in the /infinite;0 set H$ Thus, it is i2possible to !erify directly /i$e$ Se2piricallyS0, is xG/x0 true or not$ %aying that xy/x\y^y\x0 is true under the standard interpretation of first order arith2etic, does not 2ean that we ha!e !erified this fact e2pirically 3 by checking x\y^y\x for all pairs of natural nu2bers x, y$ Then, how do we know that xy/x\y^y\x0 is true8 Rf course, we either postulated this feature of natural nu2bers directly /i$e$ deri!ed it fro2 Se2pirical e!idenceS0, or pro!ed it by using so2e set of axio2s /i$e$ deri!ed it fro2 other postulates0$ Gut, in general, for2ulas ha!ing the for2 xG/x0, are Sconstructi!ely difficultS$ The for2ula xy</x, y0 2ay be e!en 2ore difficult' it will be true, if for each x in H we will be able to find y in H such that </x, y0 is true$ Thus, thinking constructi!ely, we could say that xy</x, y0 is true, only, if there is an algorith2, which, for each x in H can find y in H such that </x, y0 is true$ 9or exa2ple, under the standard interpretation of first order arith2etic, the for2ula xy/x_y I y is pri2e nu2ber0 is true /i$e$ Sthere are infinitely 2any pri2e nu2bersS0$ How do we know this8 This fact has been pro!ed in V7 century G<$ Gut the /si2ilarly Quantified0 for2ula xy/x_y I y is pri2e nu2ber I y\2 is pri2e nu2ber0, i$e$ the fa2ous twin pri2e con>ecture, is it true or not8 ?obody knows the answer$ #9ercise /.).). Verify that the S2eaningS of xy: /x, y, :0 and xy:u9/x, y, :, u0 2ay be e!en 2ore non-constructi!e$ Gut how about the for2ula xA/x0`yH/y08 7s it constructi!ely 2ore difficult

1C1 than xy</x, y0, or less8 7n general, we could pro!e that xA/x0`yH/y0 is true, if we had an algorith2, which, for each x in H such that A/x0 is true, could find y in 7 such that A/ y0 is true, i$e$ if xy/A/x0`H/y00 would be true$ 1e will establish below, that, in the classical logic, if A does not contain y, and H does not contain x, then the for2ula xA/x0`yH/y0 is eQui!alent to xy/A/x0`H/y00$ Thus, in general, the for2ula xA/x0`yH/y0 is constructi!ely as difficult as is the for2ula xy</x, y0; To generali:e this approach to co2paring Sconstructi!e difficultyS of for2ulas, the so-called $rene9 normal !orms ha!e been introduced' a0 7f a for2ula does not contain Quantifiers, then it is in the prenex nor2al for2$ b0 7f x is any !ariable, and the for2ula 9 is in the prenex nor2al for2, then x9 and x9 also are in the prenex nor2al for2$ c0 /7f you wish so,0 there are no other for2ulas in the prenex nor2al for2$ 7$e$ a for2ula is in the prenex nor2al for2, if and only if it has all its Quantifiers gathered in front of a for2ula that does not contain Quantifiers$ 7t appears, that in the classical logic, each for2ula cane be SreducedS to an appropriate eQui!alent for2ula in the prenex nor2al for2$ To obtain this nor2al for2, the following *e22as .$1$1-.$1$& can be used$ Lemma /.).). 7f the for2ula A does not contain x as a free !ariable, then' a0 V*1, *2, *., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' A`x9/x0 a x/A`9/x00$ b0 V*1, *2, *., *12-*1., 5#, AenW' x9/x0`A a x/9/x0`A0$ 1hat does it 2ean precisely8 c0 V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' A`x9/x0 a x/A`9/x00$ 5ore precisely' V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' A`x9/x0 ` x/A`9/x00$ This for2ula cannot be pro!ed constructi!ely; 1hy8 %ee %ection -$.$ Gut the con!erse for2ula can be pro!ed constructi!ely' V*1, *2, *1&-*1., 5#, AenW' x/A`9/x00 ` /A`x9/x00$ d0 V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' / x9/x0`A0 a x/9/x0`A0$ 1hat does it 2ean precisely8 5ore precisely' V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' / x9/x0`A0 ` x/9/x0`A0$ This for2ula cannot be pro!ed constructi!ely; 1hy8 %ee %ection -$.$ Gut the con!erse for2ula can be pro!ed constructi!ely' V*1, *2, *1&-*1., 5#, AenW' x/9/x0`A0 ` / x9/x0`A0$

1C2 Proo!. 9irst, let us note that /a0j is an instance of the axio2 *1-' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00, and that /b0j is an instance of the axio2 *1.$ #ro!e /a0` and /b0` as the @xercise .$1$2 below$ *et us pro!e /c0j' x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00$ /10 A`9/x0 /20 A /&0 9/x0 /-0 x9/x0 /.0 U- /A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00 /,0 U- x//A`9/x00`/A`x9/x000 /=0 U- x/A`9/x00`/A`x9/x00 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#$ Gy 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ Gy eduction Theore2 1$ Gy Aen$ Gy 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0, since A`x9/x0 does not contain x as a free !ariable$

*et us pro!e /d0j' x/9/x0`A0 `/ x9/x0`A0$ /10 9/x0`A /20 x9/x0 /&0 9/x0 /-0 A /.0 U- /9/x0`A0`/ x9/x0`A0 /,0 U- x//9/x0`A0`/ x9/x0`A00 /=0 U- x/9/x0`A0 `/ x9/x0`A0 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 6xio2 *12' x9/x0`9/x0$ Gy 5#$ Gy eduction Theore2 1$ Gy Aen$ Gy 6xio2 *1.' x/9/x0`A0`/x9/x0`A0, since x9/x0`A does not contain x as a free !ariable$

?ow, let us pro!e /c0`' /A`x9/x00 ` x/A`9/x00 in the classical logic /a constructi!e proof is i2possible, see %ection -$.0$ 9irst, let us pro!e that' U- R7 ` //A`x9/x00`x/A`9/x000

1C& /10 /20 /&0 /-0 U- fA`/A`9/x00 U- /A`9/x00`x/A`9/x00 U- fA`x/A`9/x00 U- fA ` //A`x9/x00 ` x/A`9/x000 ?ow, let us pro!e also that' /.0 /,0 /=0 /C0 /+0 A A`x9/x0 x9/x0 9/x0`/A`9/x00 x/9/x0`/A`9/x000 6xio2 *10$ 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /10 and /20$ Gy 6xio2 *1' G`/<`G0$ U- 7 ` //A`x9/x00`x/A`9/x000 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /.0 and /,0$ 6xio2 *1' G`/<`G0$ Gy Aen$ Gy Theore2 &$1$1/b0, V*1, *2, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0$ 9ro2 /=0 and /100$ Gy eduction Theore2 2 /x is not a free !ariable in A and A`x9/x0$ 9ro2 /-0 and /120, by 6xio2 *C$ The total is V*1, *2, *C, *10, *12-*1., 5#, AenW Gy 59iom L))' A!fA$

/100 x9/x0`x/A`9/x00 /110 x/A`9/x00 /120 U- A ` //A`x9/x00` x/A`9/x000

/1&0 U- 7vR7 ` //A`x9/x00` x/A`9/x000 /1-0 U- /A`x9/x0` x/A`9/x00

9inally, let us pro!e /d0`' / x9/x0`A0 ` x/9/x0`A0 in the classical logic/a constructi!e proof is i2possible, see %ection -$.0$ *et us denote this for2ula by H$ 9irst, let us pro!e that' /10 /20 /&0 x9/x0 x9/x0`A A U- 9<(9)`H Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ 9ro2 /10 and /20$

1C/-0 /.0 /,0 9/x0`A U- x/9/x0`A0 U- x9/x0 `H ?ow, let us pro!e also that /.0 /,0 /=0 /C0 /+0 f9/x0 f9/x0`/9/x0`A0 9/x0`A x/9/x0`A0 /x9/x0`A0 ` x/9/x0`A0 Gy 6xio2 *1' G`/<`G0$ Gy 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ Gy eduction Theore2 2$ U- 9R<(9)`H Hypothesis$ 6xio2 *10$ 9ro2 /.0 and /,0$ Gy 6xio2 *1&' 9/x0`x9/x0$ Gy 6xio2 *1' G`/<`G0$ Gy eduction Theore2 2$ Gy Aen and 6xio2 *1.' x/f9/x0`H0` /xf9/x0`H0$ Gy %ection &$2, 777--$ V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' U- fx9/x0`xf9/x0$ 59iom L)) is used here8 9ro2 /-0 and /120, by 6xio2 *C$ Gy 6xio2 *11' 9<(9) v R9<(9)

/100 U- f9/x0`H /110 U- 9R<(9)`H

/120 U- f9<(9)`H /1&0 U- 9<(9) v R9<(9) ` H /1&0 U- H D$@$ $

#9ercise /.).0. a0 #ro!e /a0` of *e22a .$1$1, V*1, *2, *., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' /A`x9/x00 ` x/A`9/x00$ b0 #ro!e /b0` of *e22a .$1$1, V*1, *2, *., *12-*1., 5#, AenW' /x9/x0`A0 ` x/9/x0`A0$ Lemma /.).0. 7f the for2ula A does not contain x as a free !ariable, then a0 V*1-*., *12-*1., 5#, AenW' x9/x0IA a x/9/x0IA0$ b0 V*1-*., *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' x9/x0IAax/9/x0IA0$

1C. c0 V*1, *2, *., *,-*C, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' x9/x0!Aax/9/x0!A0$ d0 V*1-*11, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' x9/x0!A a x/9/x0!A0$ 5ore precisely' V*1, *2, *., *,-*C, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' x9/x0!A ` x/9/x0!A0, i$e$ this part of the eQui!alence can be pro!ed constructi!ely$ Gut, V*1-*11, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW' x/9/x0!A0 ` x9/x0!A$ This for2ula cannot be pro!ed constructi!ely; 1hy8 %ee %ection -$.$ Proo!. #ro!e /a, b, c0 as the @xercise .$1$& below$ *et us pro!e /d0`' x9/x0!A ` x/9/x0!A0$ /10 U- 9/x0`9/x0!A /20 U- x/9/x0`9/x0!A0 /&0 U- x/G`<0`/xG`x<0 /-0 U- x9/x0`x/9/x0!A0 /.0 U- A`9/x0!A /,0 U- x/A`9/x0!A0 /=0 U- A`x/9/x0!A0 /C0 U- x9/x0!A`x/9/x0!A0 6xio2 *,$ Gy Aen$ Theore2 &$1$1/a0 V*1, *2, *12, *1-, 5#, AenW$ 9ro2 /20 and /&0$ 6xio2 *=$ Gy Aen$ Gy 6xio2 *1-$ 9ro2 /-0 and /=0, by 6xio2 *C$

9inally, let us pro!e /d0j' x/9/x0!A0 ` x9/x0!A in the classical logic /a constructi!e proof is i2possible, see %ection -$.0$ /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /-0 x/9/x0!A0 9/x0!A A!9/x0 fA 9/x0 Hypothesis$ Gy 6xio2 *12$ 9ro2 /20$ Hypothesis$ Gy Theore2 2$.$1/b0 V*1, *2, *C, *10, 5#W' U6!G`/f6`G0

1C, /.0 /,0 /=0 /C0 /+0 x9/x0 x9/x0!A U- fA ` /x/9/x0!A0`x9/x0!A0 U-A`x9/x0!A U-A ` /x/9/x0!A0`x9/x0!A0 Gy Aen$ Gy 6xio2 *,$ Gy eduction Theore2 2 /x is not free !ariable in x/9/x0!A00$ 6xio2 *=$ Gy 6xio2 *1' G`/<`G0$ 9ro2 /=0 and /+0, by 6xio2 *C$ Gy 59iom L))' A!fA$

/100 U-A!fA`/x/9/x0!A0`x9/x0!A0 /110 U- x/9/x0!A0`x9/x0!A D$@$ #9ercise /.).+. #ro!e *e22a .$1$2/a, b, c0$

Lemma /.).+. a0 V*1-*10, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' fx9/x0 a xf9/x0$ b0 V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' f x9/x0 a xf9/x0$ 5ore precisely' V*1-*11, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' f x9/x0 ` xf9/x0$ This for2ula cannot be pro!ed constructi!ely; 1hy8 %ee %ection -$.$ Gut, V*1-*10, *1&, *1-, 5#, AenW' xf9/x0 ` f x9/x0$ Proo!. a0 %ee %ection &$2, Aroup 7V$ b0`$ This is exactly %ection &$2, 777--$ b0j$ %ee %ection &$2, Aroup 777$ D$@$ $ *et us recall that a for2ula is in the prenex nor2al for2, if and only if it has all its Quantifiers gathered in front of a for2ula that does not contain Quantifiers$ ;heorem /.).,. 7n the classical logic, each for2ula is eQui!alent to an appropriate for2ula in the prenex nor2al for2$ 5ore precisely, if 9 is a for2ula, then, following a si2ple algorith2, a for2ula 9B can be constructed such that' a0 9B is in a prenex nor2al for2, b0 9B has the sa2e free !ariables as 9, c0 V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW' 9a9B$ Proo!. *et us start by an exa2ple'

1C= xA/x0`yH/y0$ 7f H did not contain x as a free !ariable, then, by *e22a .$1$1/b0' x9/x0`A a x/9/x0`A0, i$e$ this for2ula would be eQui!alent to x/A/x0`yH/y00$ ?ow, let us consider the sub-for2ula A/x0`yH/y0$ 7f A did not contain y as a free !ariable, then, by *e22a .$1$1/c0' A`x9/x0 a x/A`9/x00, the subfor2ula would be eQui!alent to y/A/x0`H/y00$ Hence, by (eplace2ent Theore2 2, x/A/x0`yH/y00 would be eQui!alent to xy/A/x0`H/y00$ Gut, if H would contain x as a free !ariable, andPor A would contain y as a free !ariable8 Then our Sshifting Quantifiers upS would be wrong 3 the for2ula xy/A/x0`H/y00 would not be eQui!alent to xA/x0`yH/y0$ To a!oid this proble2, let us use (eplace2ent Theore2 &, which says that the 2eaning of a for2ula does not depend on the na2es of bound !ariables used in it$ Thus, as the first step, in xA/x0, let us replace x by another !ariable x 1 that does not appear neither in A, nor in H$ Then, by (eplace2ent Theore2 &, xA/x0 is eQui!alent to x1A/x10, and by (eplace2ent Theore2 2, xA/x0`yH/y0 is eQui!alent to x1A/x10`yH/y0$ ?ow, x1/A/x10`yH/y00 is really eQui!alent to x1A/x10`yH/y0$ 6s the next step, in yH/y0, let us replace y by another !ariable y 1 that does not appear neither in A, nor in H$ Then, by (eplace2ent Theore2 &, yH/y0 is eQui!alent to y1H/y10, and by (eplace2ent Theore2 2, A/x 10`y1H/y10 is eQui!alent to y1/A/x10`H/y100$ 6nd, finally, xA/x0`yH/y0 is eQui!alent to x1y1/A/x10`H/y100$ ?ow, we can start the general proof$ 7n a for2ula 9, let us find the le!tmost Quantifier ha!ing a propositional connecti!e o!er it$ 7f such a Quantifier does not exist, the for2ula is in the prenex nor2al for2$ 7f such a Quantifier exists, then 9 is in one of the following for2s' DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$/fDxA0$$$0, or DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$/DxAooH0$$$0, or DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$ /AooDxH0$$$0, where DQDQ$$$DQ are the Quantifiers Salready in prefixS, D is the Quantifier in Question, and oo is the propositional connecti!e standing directly o!er D$ 7n the first case, by *e22a .$1$&, fDxA is eQui!alent to DBxfA, where DB is the Quantifier opposite to D$ Gy (eplace2ent Theore2 2, D QDQ$$$DQ/$$$ /fDxA0$$$0 is then eQui!alent to DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$/DBxfA0$$$0, i$e$ DB has now one propositional connecti!e less o!er it / /than had D0$ 7n the second case, as the first step, in DxA, let us replace x by another !ariable x1 that does not appear in the entire for2ula 9 at all$ Then, by

1CC (eplace2ent Theore2 &, DxA is eQui!alent to Dx1A1, and by (eplace2ent Theore2 2, DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$/DxAooH0$$$0 is eQui!alent to DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$ /Dx1A1ooH0$$$0$ ?ow, we can apply the appropriate case of *e22a .$1$1 or *e22a .$1$2, obtaining that Dx1A1ooH is eQui!alent to DBx1/A1ooH0, where DB is the Quantifier deter2ined by the le22a applied$ Then , by (eplace2ent Theore2 2, DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$/Dx1A1ooH0$$$0 is eQui!alent to DQDQ$$$DQ/$$$ /DBx1/A1ooH00$$$0, i$e$ DB has now one propositional connecti!e less o!er it /than had D0$ 7n the third case, the argu2ent is si2ilar$ Gy iterating this operation a finite nu2ber of ti2es, we arri!e at a for2ula 9B which is in the prenex nor2al for2, and which is /in the classical logic0 eQui!alent to 9$ D$@$ $ 6ote. 5ost for2ulas ad2it 2any different prenex nor2al for2s$ 9or exa2ple, the abo!e for2ula xA/x0`yH/y0 is eQui!alent not only to x1y1/A/x10`H/y100, but also to y1x1/A/x10`H/y100 /!erify0$ 6s an exa2ple, let us obtain a prenex nor2al for2 of the following for2ula' xG/x0 ! x</x0 ` x /x0 I /fx9/x00$ 6ssign uniQue na2es to bound !ariables' x1G/x10 ! x2</x20 ` x& /x&0 I /fx-9/x-00$ #rocess dis>unction' x1x2/G/x10 ! </x200 ` x& /x&0 I /fx-9/x-00$ #rocess negation /-0' x1x2/G/x10 ! </x200 ` x& /x&0 I x-f9/x-00 #rocess con>unction' x1x2/G/x10 ! </x200 ` x&x-/ /x&0 I f9/x-00$ #rocess i2plication pre2ise' /-, - 0' x1x2/ G/x10 ! </x20 ` x&x-/ /x&0 I f9/x-00$ #rocess i2plication conseQuent' x1x2x&x-/ G/x10 ! </x20 ` /x&0 I f9/x-00$ The last two steps could be perfor2ed in the re!erse order as well$ #9ercise /.).,. Transfor2 each of the following for2ulas into a prenex nor2al for2$ 1rite down e!ery single step of the process$ /Hint' the algorith2 is explained in the proof of Theore2 .$1$-$0 a0 xG/x0`/x</x0`x /x00, b0 xyG/x, y0 I x</x0 ` yx /x, y0,

1C+ c0 xG/x, y, :0 ` x</x, y0 ! y /y, :0, d0 xG/x0 ` /x</x0 ` /x /x0 ` x9/x000, e0 //xG/x0 ` x</x00 ` x /x00 ` x9/x0$ 6ote. 9ro2 a progra22erBs point of !iew, prenex nor2al for2s are, in a sense, a cra:y in!ention$ 7n co2puter progra22ing, you always try to reduce loop bodies, not to extend the2 as 2uch as possible; #9ercise /.)./$ 1e 2ay use reduction to prenex nor2al for2s in proofs$ 5ore precisely, let us try extending the classical logic by introducing of the following additional inference rule /let us call it P6<Drule0' gi!en a for2ula 9, replace it by so2e its prenex nor2al for2 9B$ Verify, that, in fact, this rule does not extend the classical logic, i$e$ if there is a proof of 91, 92, $$$, 9n U- A in V*1*1., 5#, Aen, #?9-ruleW, then there is a proof of the sa2e in V* 1-*1., 5#, AenW$ /7n so2e other texts, such rules are called admissible rules$ Thus, the #?9-rule is an ad2issible rule in the classical logic$0
The notion of prenex nor2al for2s and a !ersion of Theore2 .$1$- were known to %$ #eirce in 1CC.'

<harles

". .. Peirce. Rn the algebra of logic' 6 contribution to the philosophy of notation$ American /o$rna% of .athematics, 1CC., !ol$=, pp$1C0-202$ 6s noted by 5lasdair r@uhart at http'PPwww$cs$nyu$eduPpiper2ailPfo2P200=HulyP011=20$ht2l' SRn page 1+, of that article, he gi!es a brief sketch of con!ersion to prenex nor2al for2, re2arking that it Scan e!idently be done$SS$

/.0. .kolem 6ormal <orm

This nor2al for2 was first introduced by Thoralf %kole2 /1CC=-1+,&0 in 1+2C' ;h..kolem. nber die 2athe2atische *ogik$ S?orsk 2ate2atisk tidsskriftS, 1+2C, !ol$10, pp$12.-1-2$ 3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; The first !ery i2portant idea was proposed by %kole2 already in 1+20' ;h. .kolem. *ogisch-ko2binatorische )ntersuchungen gber die @rfgllbarkeit und Geweisbarkeit 2athe2atischen %lt:e nebst eine2 Theore2e gber dichte 5engen$ Ji+ens&absa&a+emiet i Cristiania, S&rifter 7, ?o$ -, 1+20, pp$ 1-&, ?a2ely, according to %kole2Bs idea, further Snor2ali:ationS beco2es

1+0 possible, if we drop the reQuire2ent that the Snor2al for2S 2ust be eQui!alent to the initial for2ula, and replace it by the reQuire2ent' >normal !orm> must be logically validY i! and only i! the initial !ormula is logically valid $ 7t appears, that in this way we can SreduceS any closed for2ula to a closed for2ula containing only one kind of Quantifiers 3 x1x2$$$xn H/x1, x2, $$$, xn0, where H does not contain Quantifiers at all /see Theore2 .$2$- below0$ %till, in his original for2ulation, instead of logical !alidity, %kole2 was interested in a 2ore technical notion 3 satis!iability$ *et us recall that, in a predicate language *, a for2ula 9 is called satisfiable, if and only if there is an interpretation of the language * such that 9 is true for so2e !alues of its free !ariables$ 9or our current purpose 3 re!utation $roo!s /to pro!e that 91, $$, 9n U- A, we assu2e fA and try to deri!e a contradiction0 satisfiability works as well as does logical !alidity$ 7ndeed /!erify, see @xercise -$1$10, a set of for2ulas is inconsistent, if and only if it is unsatisfiable$ Thus, if, in a refutation proof, we replace so2e for2ula H by an SeQually satisfiableS for2ula HB /i$e$ HB is satisfiable, if and only if so is H0, then the refutation proof re2ains !alid$ 7$e$ if, this way, we deri!e a contradiction fro2 9 1, $$, 9n,fA, then this set of fo2ulas is, indeed, unsatisfiable, i$e$ A logically follows fro2 91, $$, 9n /for a 2ore precise !ersion of this argu2ent see @xercises .$2$-0$ %kole2Bs second 2ain idea /proposed in his 1+2C paper0' allo: introduction o! ne: obBect constants and !unction constants $ 7t can be de2onstrated on the following exa2ple' how could we Ssi2plifyS the for2ula xy 9/x, y08 7t asserts that for each x there is y such that 9/x, y0 is true$ Thus, it asserts, that there is a !unction g, which selects for each !alue of x a !alue of y such that 9/x, y0 is true$ Thus, in a sense, xy 9/x, y0 is SeQui!alentS to x 9/x, g/x00$ 7n which sense8 7n the sense that xy 9/x, y0 is satisfiable, if and only if x 9/x, g/x00 is satisfiable$ 7ndeed, 1$ 7f xy 9/x, y0 is satisfiable, then there is an interpretation H where it is true, i$e$ for each !alue of x there is a !alue of y such that 9/x, y0 is true$ This allows us to define the following interpretation of the function constant g' g/x0 is one of y-s such that 9/x, y0 is true in H$ 7f we extend H by adding this interpretation of the function constant g, we obtain an interpretation HB, where x 9/x, g/x00 is true, i$e$ this for2ula is satisfiable$ 2$ 7f x 9/x, g/x00 is satisfiable, then there is an interpretation H where it is true, i$e$ for each !alue of x the for2ula 9/x, g/x00 is true$ Hence, in this interpretation, for each !alue of x there is a !alue of y /na2ely, g/x00 such that

1+1 9/x, y0 is true in H$ Thus, xy 9/x, y0 is true in H, i$e$ this for2ula is satisfiable$ 6ote$ 7n the first part of this proof, to define the function g, we need, in general, the 6xio2 of <hoice$ 7ndeed, if there is a non-e2pty set K x of y-s such that 9/x, y0 is true, to define g/x0, we 2ust choose a single ele2ent of K x$ 7f we know nothing else about the interpretation H, we are forced to use the 6xio2 of <hoice$ Gut, if we know that the interpretation H has a countable do2ain, then we can define g/x0 as the SleastS y fro2 the set K x$ 7n this way we can a!oid the 6xio2 of <hoice$ The third idea is e!en si2pler' the for2ula x 9/x0 asserts that there is x such that 9/x0 is true, so, let us denote by /an ob>ect constant0 c one of these x-s, thus obtaining 9/c0 as a Snor2al for2S of x 9/x0$ Rf course /!erify0, x 9/x0 is satisfiable, if and only if 9/c0 is satisfiable$ These two ideas allow SreducingS of any Quantifier prefix Dx 1Dx2$$$Dxn to a seQuence of uni!ersal Quantifiers only' ;heorem /.0.) (;h. .kolem)$ *et * be a predicate language$ There is an algorith2 allowing to construct, for each c%ose+ for2ula 9 of this language, a c%ose+ for2ula 9B /in a language *B obtained fro2 * by adding a finite set of new ob>ect constants and new function constants 3 depending on 90 such that' a0 9B is satisfiable, if and only if 9 is satisfiable, b0 9B is in for2 x1x2$$$xn A, where nd0, and A does not contain Quantifiers$ 7f a for2ula is in for2 x1x2$$$xn A, where nd0, and A does not contain Quantifiers, let us call it .kolem normal !orm$ Thus, each closed for2ula can be reduced to a %kole2 nor2al for2 in the following sense' for each closed for2ula 9 of a language * there is a %kole2 nor2al for2 U9U %k /in the language * extended by a finite set of %kole2 constants and %kole2 functions0, which is satisfiable, if and only if so is 9$ 6ote$ 7n co2puter science slang, the reduction procedure leading to %kole2 nor2al for2 is called Sskolemi=ationS$ 6ote. Theore2 .$2$1 does not assert that a for2ula and its %kole2 nor2al for2 are eQui!alent$ 7t asserts only that the satis!iability $roblem of the first for2ula is eQui!alent to the satisfiability proble2 of the second for2ula$ 6s already 2entioned abo!e, this is enough to allow using of %kole2 reduction in refutation proofs$ Thus, if we are interested in deter2ining the satisfiability of for2ulas, then

1+2 reducing to %kole2 nor2al for2s is a pro2ising 2ethod$ 7ndeed, for2ulas x1x2$$$xn A /where A does not contain Quantifiers0 are, perhaps, easier to analy:e than 2ore co2plicated co2binations of Quantifiers$ Proo! o! ;heorem /.0.) 9irst, let us obtain a prenex nor2al for2 9 1 of the for2ula 9 /see %ection .$10$ 7ndeed, by Theore2 .$1$-, there is a si2ple algorith2, allowing to construct a closed for2ula 91 such that 91 is a prenex nor2al for2, and, in the classical logic, U- 9a91$ Rf course, 91 is satisfiable4 if and only if so is 9$ 7f the Quantifier prefix of 91 starts with a seQuence of existential Quantifiers /$$$$$$0, we will need the following le22a to SreduceS these Quantifiers' Lemma /.0.0 $ 6 closed for2ula x1x2$$$xn H/x1, x2, $$$, xn0 is satisfiable, if and only if H/c1, c2, $$$, cn0 is satisfiable, where c1, c2, $$$, cn are new ob>ect constants that do not appear in H$ 6fter this operation, we ha!e a closed prenex for2ula H/c 1, c2, $$$, cn0 /in a language obtained fro2 * by adding a finite set of new ob>ect constants, called .kolem constants0, which is satisfiable, if and only if so is 9 1 /and 90$ The the Quantifier prefix of H/c1, c2, $$$, cn0 /if any0 starts with a seQuence of uni!ersal Quantifiers / $$$$$$0$ To proceed, we will need the following Lemma /.0.+$ 6 closed for2ula x1x2$$$xny "/x1, x2, $$$, xn, y0 is satisfiable, if and only if x1x2$$$xn "/x1, x2, $$$, xn, g/x1, x2, $$$, xn00 is satisfiable, where g is a new n-ary function constant /called .kolem !unction0, which does not appear in "$ Gy iterating this le22a, we can SreduceS the entire Quantifier prefix of H/c1, c2, $$$, cn0 to a seQuence of uni!ersal Quantifiers only / $$$0$ 9or exa2ple, the for2ula t xy:uw 9/t, x, y, :, u, w0 is satisfiable, if and only if so is xyuw 9/c, x, y, g/x, y0, u, w0 /where c is %kole2 constant that does not appear in 90, and, if and only if so is xyuw 9/c, x, y, g/x, y0, u, w0, and, if and only if so is %kole2 nor2al for2' xyu 9/c, x, y, g/x, y0, u, h/x, y, u00, where g and h are %kole2 functions that do not appear in 9$

1+& #9ercise /.0.). a0 #ro!e *e22a .$2$2$ b0 #ro!e *e22a .$2$&$ How 2any new ob>ect constants and new function constants /%kole2 constants and functions0 do we need to obtain the final for2ula 9B8 The nu2ber of new sy2bols is deter2ined by the nu2ber of existential Quantifiers in the Quantifier prefix of the prenex for2ula 9 1$ 7ndeed, a0 the nu2ber of new ob>ect constants is deter2ined by the nu2ber of existential Quantifiers in front of the prefix, and b0 the nu2ber of new function constants is deter2ined by the nu2ber of existential Quantifiers that follow after the uni!ersal ones$ This co2pletes the proof of Theore2 .$2$1$ #9ercise /.0.0$ Rbtain %kole2 nor2al for2s of the for2ulas 2entioned in @xercise .$1$-$ %ee also' S%kole2i:ationS fro2 The 1olfra2 e2onstrations #ro>ect$ <ontributed by' Hector Lenil$ %till, if we are interested in deter2ining the logical !alidity of for2ulas, then we should apply the result of @xercise -$1$1 together with Theore2 .$2$1' 9 is logically !alid, if and only if f9 is not satisfiable, if and only if a %kole2 nor2al for2 of f9 is not satisfiable, if and only if x1x2$$$xn A /where nd0, and A does not contain Quantifiers0 is not satisfiable, if and only if fx1x2$$$xn A is logically !alid, if and only if x1x2$$$xn fA is logically !alid$ Thus we ha!e pro!ed the following ;heorem /.0.,$ *et * be a first order language$ There is an algorith2 allowing to construct, for each closed for2ula 9 of this language, a closed for2ula 9B /in a language *B obtained fro2 * by adding a finite set of new ob>ect constants and new function constants 3 depending on 90 such that' a0 9B is logically !alid /or, pro!able in the classical logic0, if and only if 9 is logically !alid /or, pro!able in the classical logic0, b0 9B is in for2 x1x2$$$xn A, where nd0, and A does not contain Quantifiers$ The ob>ects of artificial intelligence and of deducti!e databases are, as a rule, large sets of for2ulas, i$e$, in fact, large con>unctions of for2ulas$ Thus, the following extension of Theore2 .$2$1 will be !ery useful 3 it will allow separate reducing to %kole2 nor2al for2 of each con>unction 2e2ber /instead of reducing the entire con>unction as a single !ery long for2ula0' ;heorem /.0./$ *et * be a first order language$ There is an algorith2 allowing to construct, for each finite set of closed for2ulas 9 1, 92, $$$, 9n of this

1+language, a set of closed for2ula U9 1U%k, U92U%k, $$$, U9nU%k /in a language *B obtained fro2 * by adding a finite set of new ob>ect constants and new function constants0 such that' a0 U91U%k, U92U%k, $$$, U9nU%k are all %kole2 nor2al for2s of 91, 92, $$$, 9n respecti!ely, b0 the con>unction 91I92I $$$I9n is satisfiable, if and only if so is the con>unction U91U%kI U92U%kI $$$ IU9nU%k$ Proo!. $$$ To be continued$ #9ercise /.0.+ /for s2art students0$ 7n his abo!e-2entioned 1+20 paper, for Quantifier eli2ination, %kole2 proposed introduction o! ne: $redicate constants /to the idea that function constants will do better, he arri!ed only in the 1+2C paper0$ o not read neither %kole2Bs papers, nor the abo!e2entioned online co22ents, and pro!e yourself that by introduction of new predicate constants, the satisfiability proble2 of any closed for2ula can be reduced to the satisfiability proble2 of a for2ula ha!ing the for2 x1x2$$$x2y1y2$$$yn A, where 2, nd0, and A does not contain Quantifiers$ Thus, function constants Swill do betterS 3 see Theore2 .$2$1$ #9ercise /.0., /co2pare with @xercise .$1$.0$ %ince, in general, %kole2 nor2al for2 is not eQui!alent to the initial for2ula, we cannot use reduction to %kole2 nor2al for2s in the usual /Spositi!eS, or affir2ati!e0 proofs$ Gut we 2ay use it in Snegati!eS /or, refutation0 proofs, i$e$ in proofs ai2ed at deri!ing a contradiction; 5ore precisely, let us try extending the classical logic by introducing of the following additional inference rule /let us call it .6<Drule0' gi!en a for2ula 9, replace it by so2e its %kole2 nor2al for2 9B /such that the newly introduced ob>ect constants and function constants do not appear in the proof before 9B0$ Verify, that, in fact, this rule does not extend the classical logic for refutation proofs, i$e$ if, fro2 a set of for2ulas 9 1, 92, $$$, 9n, one can deri!e a contradiction by using V*1-*1., 5#, Aen, %?9-ruleW, then one can do the sa2e by using V*1-*1., 5#, AenW$ /Thus, the %?9-rule is admissible !or re!utation $roo!s in the classical logic$0

1+.

/.+. "onBunctive and DisBunctive 6ormal <orms

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; *et us continue the Snor2ali:ationS process that we started in %ection .$1 by reducing for2ulas to their prenex nor2al for2s, where all Quantifiers are gathered in front of a for2ula that does not contain Quantifiers$ How could we further Snor2ali:eS this Sfor2ula that does not contain QuantifiersS8 .te$ )? eliminate e@uivalence 9irst of all, we can eli2inate all eQui!alence connecti!es because Ga< is only a shortcut for /G`<0I/<`G0$ 1hy should we8 Gecause, pro!ing of Ga< consists of pro!ing of G`< and pro!ing of <`G$ )sing the shortcut si2plifies the appearance of the for2ula, not its proof$ .te$ 0? eliminate im$lication 6fter this, our for2ula will contain only i2plication, con>unction, dis>unction and negation connecti!es$ 6s the next step, we could try to eli2inate one /or two80 of these connecti!es$ The classical logic allows to do that$ 9or exa2ple, by Theore2 2$,$-/b0, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- /6`G0af6!G$ Gy using this eQui!alence, we can eli2inate i2plication connecti!es$ 9or exa2ple, the for2ula G`/<` 0 is eQui!alent /in the classical logic only;0 to fG!/f<! 0$ Gut, instead of i2plications, we could try eli2inating dis>unctions or con>unctions as well$ 7ndeed, #9ercise /.+.)$ 7n the classical logic V*1-*11, 5#W, pro!e the following' a0 U- /6`G0af/6IfG0$ b0 U- /6!G0a/f6`G0$ c0 U- /6!G0af/f6IfG0$ d0 U- /6IG0af/6`fG0$ e0 U- /6IG0af/f6!fG0$ /9or s2art students0 eter2ine, which parts of these eQui!alencies can be pro!ed in the constructi!e logic V*1-*10, 5#W$ @nd of @xercise .$&$1$ Gy using these results, we could eli2inate fro2 our for2ulas any one /or any two0 of the three connecti!es 3 i2plication, con>unction, or dis>unction$ Howe!er, the best decision would be eli2inating only i2plications$ 1hy8

1+, Gecause con>unction and dis>unction are associati!e and co22utati!e operations 3 and !ery 2uch like addition /dis>unction0 and 2ultiplication /con>unction0; 9or exa2ple, after reducing the for2ula G`/<`G0 to fG!/f<!G0, we can further transfor2 it to fG!f<!G and G!fG!< 3 and conclude that it is Strue and pro!ableS /no surprise, it is 6xio2 *10$ .te$ +? move negations do:n to atoms Thus, after %tep 2, our for2ula contains only con>unction, dis>unction and negation connecti!es$ ?ow, let us recall the two de 5organ laws' Theore2 2$,$&, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f/6IG0 a f6!fG$ Theore2 2$-$10/b0, V*1-*+, 5#W U- f/6!G0 a f6IfG$ Gy using these eQui!alencies, we can shift negations down 3 until the ato2s of the for2ula$ 9or exa2ple, let us transfor2 the for2ula //6`G0`<0`GI<' ((5F')F")F('Z") f//6`G0`<0!/'Z"0 f/(5F')F"0!/GI<0 f/f/5F'0!<0!/GI<0 f/f/f6!G0v<0!/GI<0 3 after %tep 2 /ff/f6vG0If<0!/GI<0 /f/ff6ZRG0If<0!/GI<0 //fff6!RRG0If<0!/GI<0 ?ow, let us recall the ouble ?egation *aw' Theore2 2$,$1, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- ff6 a 6$ 7t allows dropping the excessi!e negations 3 we can replace fff6 by f6 and ffG 3 by G' //f6!G0If<0!/GI<0 6ote. This for2 of for2ulas is called negation normal !orm$ ?a2ely, a for2ula is in negation nor2al for2, if it is built of ato2s with or without negations by using con>unctions and dis>unctions only$ 7$e$ a for2ula in negation nor2al for2 contains only con>unctions, dis>unctions and negations, and negations are located at the ato2s only$ 6s we see, in the classical logic, any propositional for2ula can be reduced /is eQui!alent0 to so2e for2ula in negation nor2al for2$ .te$ ,? algebra 6fter %tep &, our for2ula is built up by using' a0 ato2s, b0 ato2s preceded by a negation,

1+= c0 con>unction and dis>unction connecti!es$ <on>unction and dis>unction are associati!e and co22utati!e operations$ Gy the beha!ior of Struth !aluesS, con>unction is a kind of 2ultiplication /0I0^0, 0I1^1I0^0, 1I1^10, and dis>unction 3 a kind of addition /0!0^0, 0!1^1!0^1, 1!1^10$ Howe!er, for these operations t:o distributi!e laws are !alid /Theore2 2$&$10 3 con>unction is distributi!e to dis>unction, and dis>unction is distributi!e to con>unction' V*1-*C, 5#W' U- /6IG0!<a/6!<0I/G!<0$ V*1-*C, 5#W' U- /6!G0I<a/6I<0!/GI<0$ Thus, both of the two decisions could be >ustified' 10 /Rur first SalgebraS0 *et us treat con>unction as 2ultiplication and dis>unction 3 as addition /\0$ Then the abo!e for2ula //f6!G0If<0!/GI<0 takes the for2 //6B\G0<B0\G< /let us replace f6 by the S2ore algebraicS 6B0$ 6fter this, the usual algebraic transfor2ations yield the for2ula 6B<B\G<B\G<$ 20 /Rur second SalgebraS0 *et us treat con>unction as addition /\0 and dis>unction 3 as 2ultiplication$ Then the abo!e for2ula //f6!G0If<0!/GI<0 takes the for2 /6BG\<B0/G\<0$ 6fter this, the usual algebraic transfor2ations yield the for2ula 6BGG\6BG<\<BG\<B<$ 6dditional rules can be applied in these SalgebrasS$ 9irst rule 3 con>unction and dis>unction are ide2potent operations' V*1- *., 5#W' U- 6I6a6 /see %ection 2$20$ V*1, *2, *., *,-*C, 5#W' U- 6!6a6 /@xercise 2$&$1/c00$ Thus, in both of our SalgebrasS' 5[5 W 55 W 5$ %econd rule 3 6If6 /i$e$ SfalseS0 is a kind of S:eroS in the first SalgebraS, and a kind of SoneS 3 in the second SalgebraS' V*1-*10, 5#W' U- G!/6If60 a G /@xercise 2$.$1/a00$ V*1-*10, 5#W' U- //6If60IG0!< a < /@xercise 2$.$1/b00$ 7ndeed, in the first SalgebraS, these for2ulas 2ean G\66B ^ G and 66BG\< ^ <, i$e$ we 2ay think that 66B^0, G0^0, <\0^<$ 7n the second SalgebraS, these for2ulas 2ean G/6\6B0 ^ G and /6\6B\G0< ^ <, i$e$ we 2ay think that 6\6B^1, G1^G, <\1^1$ Third rule 3 6!f6 /i$e$ StrueS0 is a kind of SoneS in the first SalgebraS, and a kind of S:eroS 3 in the second SalgebraS' V*1-*11, 5#W' U- GI/6!f60 a G /@xercise 2$,$2/a00$

1+C V*1-*11, 5#W' U-/ /6!f60!G0I< a < /@xercise 2$,$2/b00$ 7ndeed, in the first SalgebraS, these for2ulas 2ean G/6\6B0 ^ G and /6\6B\G0< ^ <, i$e$ we 2ay think that 6\6B^1, G1^1, <\1^1$ 7n the second SalgebraS$ these for2ulas 2ean G\66B ^ G and 66BG\< ^ <, i$e$ we 2ay think that 66B^0, G0^0, <\0^<$ Thus, in both algebras, 55JWI, 'IWI, "[IW", 5[5JW), ')W', "[)W). %o, let us continue our exa2ple 10 /The first SalgebraS0 The for2ula 6B<B\G<B\G< is eQui!alent to 6B<B\G/<B\<0 ^ 6B<B\G, or, if we return to logic' /f6If<0!G$ %uch dis>unctions consisting of con>unctions are called disBunctive normal !orms / ?9s0$ 7n a ?9, each con>unction contains each ato2 no 2ore than once 3 either without negation, or with it$ 7ndeed, if it contains so2e ato2 J twice, then' a0 replace JJ by J, or b0 replace JBJB by JB, or c0 replace JJB by 0 /in the latter case 3 drop the entire con>unction fro2 the expression0$ 7n this way, for so2e for2ulas, we 2ay obtain S:eroS, i$e$ an em$ty D6<$ Rf course, such for2ulas take only false !alues /SfalseS is S:eroS in the first SalgebraS0$ 6nd for so2e for2ulas, we 2ay obtain SoneS, i$e$ a kind of >!ull> D6<$ %uch for2ulas take only true !alues /StrueS is SoneS in the first SalgebraS0$ 20 /The second SalgebraS0 The for2ula 6BGG\6BG<\<BG\<B< is eQui!alent to 6BG\6BG<\G<B ^ 6BG/1\<0\G<B ^ 6BG\G<B, or, if we return to logic' /f6!G0I/G!f<0$ %uch con>unctions consisting of dis>unctions are called conBunctive normal !orms /<?9s0$ 7n a <?9, each dis>unction contains each ato2 no 2ore than once 3 either without negation, or with it$ 7ndeed, if it contains so2e ato2 J twice, then' a0 replace JJ by J, or b0 replace JBJB by JB, or c0 replace JJB by 0 /in the latter case 3 drop the entire dis>unction fro2 the expression0$ 7n this way, for so2e for2ulas, we 2ay obtain S:eroS, i$e$ an em$ty "6<$ Rf course, such for2ulas take only true !alues /StrueS is S:eroS in the second SalgebraS0$ 6nd for so2e for2ulas, we 2ay obtain SoneS, i$e$ a kind of >!ull> "6<$ %uch for2ulas take only false !alues /SfalseS is SoneS in the second SalgebraS0$ Thus, we ha!e pro!ed the following ;heorem /.+.). 7n the classical logic, e!ery propositional for2ula can be reduced to ?9 and to <?9$ 5ore precisely, assu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ Then' a0 There is a for2ula 91, which is in a /possibly e2pty or full0 dis>uncti!e nor2al for2 o!er G1, G2, $$$, Gn such that V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 9 a 91$ b0 There is a for2ula 92, which is in a /possibly e2pty or full0 con>uncti!e

1++ nor2al for2 o!er G1, G2, $$$, Gn such that V*1-*11, 5#W' U- 9 a 92$ #9ercise /.+.0$ a0 Guild ?9s and <?9s of the following for2ulas$ /Hint' the algorith2 is explained in the abo!e %teps 1--$0 f/6IG`<0, /6`G0a/<` 0, 6!Ga<! , 6IGa<I $ b0 Guild ?9s and <?9s of the following for2ulas' f/6!f60, //6`G0`60`6, /6`G0`//f6`G0`G0$
The notion of dis>uncti!e nor2al for2 was known in 1CC& to Rscar Howard 5itchell /1C.11CC+0' Ascar &o:ard Mitchell$ Rn a ?ew 6lgebra of *ogic$ 7n' St$+ies in Logic by .embers of the /ohns Hop&ins 2ni'ersity, 1CC., pp$ =2-10,$

/.,. "lause <orm

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; "lause <orms o! Pro$ositional <ormulas 1hich for2 is 2ore SnaturalS 3 ?9, or <?98 Rf course, <?9 is 2ore natural$ 7ndeed, a ?9 1! 2! $$$ ! 2 asserts that one /or 2ore0 of the for2ulas i is true$ This is a !ery co2plicated assertion 3 so2eti2es 1 is true, so2eti2es 2 is true, etc$ Gut, if we ha!e a <?9 instead 3 <1I<2I $$$ I<n8 7t asserts that all the for2ulas <i are true, i$e$ we can replace the long for2ula <1I<2I $$$ I<n by a set of shorter for2ulas <1, <2, $$$, <n$ 9or hu2an reading and for co2puter processing, a set of shorter for2ulas is 2uch 2ore con!enient than a single long for2ula$ *et us return to our exa2ple for2ula //6`G0`<0`GI< of %ection .$&, for which we obtained a ?9 /f6If<0!G and a <?9' /f6!G0I/G!f<0$ 1ithout a transfor2ation, ?9 2ay be hard for reading and understanding$ The <?9 is 2ore con!enient 3 it says si2ply that f6!G is true and G!f< is true$

200 6s another step, 2aking the for2ulas easier to understand, we could apply the following eQui!alences' V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6!G a6`G, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6!fG!< a 6IG`<, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6!G!< a 6`G!<, V*1-*11, 5#W' U- f6!fG!<! a 6IG`<! , etc$ #9ercise /.,.). Verify these eQui!alences by pro!ing that, generally /in the classical logic0, V*1-*11, 5#W' f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn a /61I62I $$$ I62 ` G1!G2! $$$ !Gn0$ Thus, we can replace our set of two for2ulas f6!G and G!f< by 6`G, <`G$ The con>unction of these two for2ulas is eQui!alent to the initial for2ula //6`G0`<0`GI<$ 9or2ulas ha!ing the for2 61I62I $$$ I62 ` G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, or, alternati!ely, f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, where 61, 62, $$$ , 62, G1, G2, $$$ , Gn are ato2s, are called clauses$ <lauses are !ery well suited for co2puter processing$ 7ndeed, in the co2puter 2e2ory, we can represent the abo!e for2ula si2ply as a pair of sets of ato2s 3 the negati!e set X61, 62, $$$ , 62Y and the positi!e set XG1, G2, $$$ , GnY$ 1hat, if one /or both0 of these sets is /are0 e2pty8 7f, in the for2ula f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, we ha!e 2 ^ 0 and n b 0, then, of course, this for2ula asserts si2ply that G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, i$e$ Scon!ertingS it into the i2plication ` G1!G2! $$$ !Gn /with e2pty pre2ise0 leads us to the following definition' the clause ` G1!G2! $$$ !Gn 2eans the sa2e as G1!G2! $$$ !Gn$

201 7f, in the for2ula f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, we ha!e 2 b 0 and n ^ 0, then, of course, this for2ula asserts si2ply thatf61!f62! $$$ !f62, i$e$ Scon!ertingS it into the i2plication 61I62I $$$ I62 ` /with e2pty conseQuence0 leads us to the following definition' the clause 61I62I $$$ I62 ` 2eans the sa2e as f/61I62I $$$ I620$ 7f 2^n^0, then, as an e2pty dis>unction, the clause 2ust be Qualified as false$ 6ote. <lauses are si2ilar to seQuents 3 pairs of sets of for2ulas /%1, %20, used in the proof of Theore2 -$-$. /co2pleteness of the constructi!e propositional logic0 in %ection -$-$ 7n a seQuent /%1, %20, the sets %1, %2 could contain arbitrary for2ulas, but, in a clause, %1, %2 are sets of ato2s$ %ets /i$e$ con>unctions0 of clauses are called clause !orms /in so2e texts 3 c%a$sa% forms0$ Gy Theore2 .$&$1, e!ery propositional for2ula can be reduced to a /possibly e2pty, i$e$ true0 <?9$ %ince e!ery con>uction 2e2ber of a <?9 represents, in fact, a clause, we ha!e established the following ;heorem /.,.)$ 7n the classical logic, e!ery propositional for2ula can be reduced to a clause for2$ 5ore precisely, assu2e, the for2ula 9 has been built of for2ulas G1, G2, $$$, Gn by using propositional connecti!es only$ Then there is a /possibly e2pty0 clause for2 9B /i$e$ a set of clauses0 o!er G1, G2, $$$, Gn such that V*1-*11, 5#W' 9 a I9B, where I9B denotes the con>unction of the clauses contained in the set 9B$ 9or exa2ple, as we established abo!e, the set X f6!G, G!f< Y /or, alternati!ely, X6`G, <`GY0 is a clause for2 of the for2ula //6`G0`<0`GI<$ #9ercise /.,.0$ Rbtain clause for2s of the for2ulas 2entioned in the @xercise .$&$2$ <lause for2s /in a sense, Mclouds of si2ple dis>unctionsN0 are well suited for co2puter processing$ 7n the co2puter 2e2ory, e!ery clause f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn can be represented as a pair of sets of ato2s' /EX 61, 62, $$$, 62 Y, \X G1, G2, $$$, Gn Y0, and e!ery clause for2 3 as a set of such pairs 3 i$e$ it 2eans less character string processing and less expression parsing; "lause <orm o! a .et o! <ormulas 7n the knowledge base, the set of for2ulas X 91, 92, $$$, 9k Y asserts the

202 con>uction 91I92I $$$ I9k$ Hence, the clause for2 of this set can be obtained si2ply as the union of clause for2s of separate for2ulas 9i$ "lause <orms o! Predicate <ormulas Rf course /unfortunately0, nothing co2parable to clause for2s could be obtained for predicate for2ulas, if we would insist that the clause for2 2ust be eQui!alent to the initial for2ula$ %till, reducing of predicate for2ulas to Sclause for2sS beco2es possible, if we drop this reQuire2ent, and replace it by the reQuire2ent that the Sclause for2S 2ust be satisfiable, if and only if the initial for2ula is satisfiable$ 6nd 3 if we allow %kole2Bs style extending the language by adding new ob>ect constants and new function constants$ Then, by %kole2Bs Theore2 /Theore2 .$2$10, for each closed for2ula 9, we can obtain a .kolem normal !orm x1x2$$$xk A, where kd0, the for2ula A does not contain Quantifiers, and this for2 is satisfiable, if and only if so is 9$ Gy Theore2 .$-$1, let us con!ert A into a "6<, and then 3 into a clause for2 AB, i$e into a set of clauses /with atomic sub-for2ulas of A playing the role of ato2s G1, G2, $$$, Gn0$ %ince IAB is eQui!alent to A, the for2ula x1x2$$$xk IAB is satisfiable, if and only if so is 9$ Rne 2ore step is necessary to separate clauses co2pletely 3 rena2ing of !ariables in such a way that no t:o clauses contain common variables$ 9or the set of clauses AB ^ X<1, <2, $$$, <kY, the for2ula x1x2$$$xnIAB is eQui!alent to the for2ula /x1x2$$$xn <10 I /x1x2$$$xn <20 I $$$ I /x1x2$$$xn <k0$ 6ccording to the (eplace2ent Theore2 &, we will obtain an eQui!alent for2ula, if we will rena2e the !ariables xi in such a way that no two clauses contain co22on !ariables$ 6fter this separation of clauses !ia rena2ing of !ariables, we drop Quantifiers entirely, and the set AB is then called a clause !orm of the for2ula 9$ 9or predicate for2ulas, clauses are built as dis>unctions of atomic for2ulas /without, or with negation0, i$e$ the for2ulas ha!ing the for2 p/t1, $$$, t20, where p is a predicate constant, and t1, $$$, t2 are ter2s /possibly, containing !ariables0$ Thus, we ha!e pro!ed the following ;heorem /.,.0$ *et * be a predicate language$ There is an algorith2 allowing to construct, for each c%ose+ for2ula 9 of this language, a clause for2 %, i$e$ a finite set of clauses /in a language *B obtained fro2 * by adding a finite set of

20& new ob>ect constants and new function constants 3 depending on 90 such that 9 is satisfiable, if and only if so is the /closed0 for2ula x1x2$$$xn I%, where I% denotes the con>unction of the clauses contained in %, and x1, x2, $$$, xn are all the !ariables appearing in the clauses contained in %$ 6ote. 7n 2ost texts, the closed for2ula x1x2$$$xn I% /i$e$ where all the !ariables appearing in I% are uni!ersally Quantified0 is called the universal closure of I%$ 6s an exa2ple, let us consider the for2ula asserting that there are infinitely 2any pri2e nu2bers' Sx is a pri2e nu2berS' xb1 I fy: /yb1 I :b1 I x^y]:0, ux /xbu I x is a pri2e nu2ber0, ux /xbu I xb1 I fy: /yb1 I :b1 I x^y]:00 --------------- /]0 <on!ert it into a prenex nor2al for2' ux /xbu I xb1 I y: f/yb1 I :b1 I x^y]:00, uxy: /xbu I xb1 I f/yb1 I :b1 I x^y]:00$ (eplace ux by u by introducing a %kole2 function g' uy: /g/u0bu I g/u0b1 I f/yb1 I :b1 I g/u0^y]:00$ 7n this %kole2 nor2al for2, con!ert the Quantifier-free part into a con>uncti!e nor2al for2' uy: /g/u0bu I g/u0b1 I /f/yb10 ! f/:b10 ! f/g/u0^y]:000$ This for2ula is satisfiable, if and only if so is the initial for2ula /]0$ The last step' since the last for2ula is eQui!alent to uy: /g/u0bu0 I uy:/g/u0b10 Iuy: /f/yb10 ! f/:b10 ! f/g/u0^y]:000, we can rena2e the !ariables in such a way that no two clauses contain co22on !ariables' u1y: /g/u10bu10 I u2y:/g/u20b10 Iu&y: /f/yb10 ! f/:b10 ! f/g/u&0^y]:000, Thus, we ha!e obtained a set of & clauses' g/u10bu1, g/u20b1, f/yb10 ! f/:b10 ! f/g/u&0^y]:0$

20or, alternati!ely, ` g/u10bu1, ` g/u20b1, yb1, :b1, g/u&0^y]: `$ These sets of & for2ulas are clause for2s of the for2ula /]0$ #9ercise /.,.+$ Rbtain clause for2s of the for2ulas 2entioned in the @xercise .$1$- /assu2e that G, <, , 9 are predicate constants0$ "lause <orm o! a .et o! <ormulas 7n the knowledge base, the set of /c%ose+0 for2ulas X 91, 92, $$$, 9k Y asserts the con>uction 91I92I $$$ I9k$ The clause for2 of this set can be obtained, again, si2ply as the union of clause for2s of separate for2ulas 9i$ 6fter this, we should perfor2 the rena2ing of !ariables in such a way that no two clauses contain co22on !ariables$ &orn "lauses 6lfred Horn /1+1C-20010 3 biography /in Gulgarian0 published by i2iter %korde!$ 7n, in a clause 61I62I $$$ I62 ` G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, or, alternati!ely, f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn, we ha!e n^1 or n^0, then it is called &orn clause$ 7$e$, 61I62I $$$ I62 ` G, or, alternati!ely, f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G$ There are for2ulas that cannot be reduced to Horn clauses /!erify0$ http'PPwo2bat$doc$ic$ac$ukPfoldocPfoldoc$cgi8Horn\clause The na2e SHorn <lauseS co2es fro2 the logician 6lfred Horn, who first pointed out the significance of such clauses in 1+.1, in the article SRn sentences which are true of direct unions of algebrasS, Hournal of %y2bolic *ogic, 1,, 1--21$ http'PPwww$cs$ucsd$eduPusersPgoguenPcoursesP2&0Ps11$ht2l

20. 6s a footnote, 6lfred Horn, for who2 Horn clauses are na2ed, had nothing to do with logic progra22ing4 he was a professor of logic at )<*6 who in 1+.1 wrote paper using the sentences that now bear his na2e for reasons ha!ing little to do with co2puter science$ 6s a second footnote, it see2s to 2e rather 2isleading to call #rolog a Slogic progra22ingS language, since it departs rather far fro2 logic4 7 would rather ha!e had it called a Srelational progra22ingS language, because it is the use and 2anipulation of relations that is 2ost characteristic of its progra22ing style$ http'PPwww$cs$fit$eduPfryanPstudyPbibliography$ht2l Horn, 6lfred$ kkRn sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras$BB Hournal of %y2bolic *ogic, !olu2e 1,, nu2ber 1, 5arch 1+.1, pages 1--21$ This paper has !ery little to do with Horn clauses$ To be continued$

/./. %esolution Method !or Pro$ositional <ormulas

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; (e2e2ber, that we are sol!ing the proble2 of deter2ining, does the for2ula A follow fro2 the for2ulas 91, 92, $$$, 9n$ 7f does so, if and only if the set of for2ulas 91, 92, $$$, 9n, fA is unsatisfiable$ 6ssu2e, we ha!e obtained a clause for2 % of the for2ula 91I92I $$$ I9nIfA$ How to deter2ine, is % unsatisfiable, or not8 7n a sense, % represents Ma cloud of si2ple dis>unctionsN$ How to work with such a cloud effecti!ely8 &istory K. 5. %obinson. Theore2-pro!ing on the co2puter$ SHour$ 6ssoc$ <o2put$ 5ach$S, !ol$10, ?2, 1+,&, pp$1,&-1=K. 5. %obinson. 6 2achine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle, SHour$ 6ssoc$ <o2put$ 5ach$S, !ol$12, ?1, Hanuary 1+,., pp$2&--1 /a!ailable online, (ussian translation a!ailable' S"ib$ sbornik /no!aya seriya0S, =, 1+=0, pp$1+--21C0 Kohn 5lan %obinson? SGorn in Korkshire in 1+&0, (obinson ca2e to the )nited %tates in 1+.2 with a classics degree fro2 <a2bridge )ni!ersity$ He studied philosophy at the )ni!ersity of Rregon before 2o!ing to #rinceton where he recei!ed his #h in philosophy in 1+.,$ Te2porarily kkdisillusioned with philosophy,kk he went to work as an operations research analyst for u

20, #ont, where he learnt progra22ing and taught hi2self 2athe2atics$ (obinson 2o!ed to (ice )ni!ersity in 1+,1, spending his su22ers as a !isiting researcher at the 6rgonne ?ational *aboratoryBs 6pplied 5athe2atics i!ision$ 7ts then irector, 1illia2 9$ 5iller, pointed (obinson in the direction of theore2 pro!ing$$$ 5iller showed (obinson a 1+,0 paper by 5artin a!is and Hilary #utna2 /coincidentally, the latter had been (obinsonBs #h super!isor0 proposing a predicate-calculus proof procedure that see2ed potentially superior to Ail2oreBs, but which they had not yet turned into a practical co2puter progra2$ 5iller suggested that (obinson use his progra22ing skills to i2ple2ent a!is and #utna2Bs procedure on the 6rgonne 7G5 =0-$ (obinson Quickly found that their procedure re2ained !ery inefficient$ Howe!er, while i2ple2enting a different procedure also suggested in 1+,0 by ag #rawit:, (obinson ca2e to see how the two sets of ideas could be co2bined into a new, far 2ore efficient, auto2ated proof procedure for first-order predicate logic' SresolutionS$$$S /6ccording to onald 5ac"en:ie, The 6uto2ation of #roof' 6 Historical and %ociological @xploration, S7@@@ 6nnals of the History of <o2putingS, !ol$1=, ?&, 1++., pp$ =-2+0$ S7n retrospect, unification and resolution see2 rather ob!ious ideas, which arise ine!itably when one asks what 2ust be syntactically true of a set of clauses which possesses the se2antic property of ha!ing no Herbrand 2odels$S /H$6$(obinson, S)nification and (esolution in (etrospectS, 1++=, see at http'PPwww$uni!orleans$frP%<7@?<@%P*79RP5anifestationsPHfplcZ)nifZ+=P>fplcPin!itefrancais$ht2l0$ 6ote. 6l2ost at the sa2e ti2e when H$6$(obinson in!ented the resolution 2ethod, %ergei 5aslo! in!ented his inverse method, which has a si2ilar range of applications' .. \u. Maslov$ 6n in!erse 2ethod of establishing deducibilities in the classical predicate calculus, S%o!iet 5athe2atics, okladyS, 1+,-, ?., pp$1-20-1-2&( %ee also' 5aslo! %$ K$ /1+&+-1+C20, hu2an rights acti!ist in @?<K<*R#6@ 76 R9 %67?T #@T@(%G)(A$ 6bout the history of the proble2 see' K. 5. %obinson. <o2putational *ogic' 5e2ories of the #ast and <hallenges for the 9uture$ Comp$tationa% Logic Q CL 9===, First #nternationa% Conference, Lon+on, 2C, 9K>9R /$%y, 9===, Procee+ings, %pringer, *ecture ?otes in <o2puter %cience, 2000, Vol$ 1C,1, pp$ 1-2- /online copy0$ M. Davis. The @arly History of 6uto2ated eduction$7n' Han+boo& of

20= A$tomate+ )easoning, ed$ by 6$ (obinson and 6$ Voronko!, @lse!ier %cience, 2001, !ol$ 7, pp$ &-1. /online postscript0 ;he Method 6gain, how to work with Ma cloud of si2ple dis>unctionsN effecti!ely8 6ssu2e that, in a set of clauses, two clauses are contained such that an ato2 < appears as a positi!e 2e2ber in the first clause, and as a negati!e 2e2ber in the second one' f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gnv", ------------------ /10 R"vf or, si2ply, 9v", ------- /1a0 R"vA$ --------- /2a0 7f < is false, then /1a0 yields 9, and, if < is true, then /2a0 yields A$ Thus, fro2 /1a0 and /2a0 we ha!e deri!ed 9!A$ 7$e$ deri!ing 9!A fro2 9!< and f<!A is Slogically correctS, and it is called %obinsonJs resolution rule /H$6$(obinson proposed it in the abo!e 1+,& paper0' 9!<, f<!A ---------------9!A Taking into account the rule /of the classical logic0 f6!G a /6`G0, we can obtain an alternati!e for2 of the resolution rule' f9`<, <`A ----------------4 f9`A 7n the classical logic, this for2 is eQui!alent to the La: o! .yllogism /transiti!ity of i2plication0$ 7f 9 is e2pty, then this for2 deri!es A fro2 <, <`A, i$e$ resolution rule includes Modus Ponens as a special case$ 7f A is e2pty, then fro2 f9!<, f< /i$e$ 9`<, f<0, the resolution rule deri!es f9, i$e$ it includes Modus ;ollens as a special case$ #9ercise /./.)$ eri!e the resolution rule in the constructi!e logic, i$e$ pro!e that V*1-*10, 5#W' <!9, f<!A U- 9!A$ Verify that it cannot be pro!ed in the 2ini2al logic V*1-*+, 5#W$ /Hint' in the positi!e part 3 use Theore2 2$.$1/b0
1!f 2! p!1!2!

$$$ !f

$$$ !Q, ------------------ /20

20C V*1, *2, *C, *10, 5#W' 9!<, f< U- 9$ 7n the negati!e part 3 !erify that in the 2ini2al logic, the resolution rule allows pro!ing of *10, see %ection 2$.0$ Thus, fro2 the clauses /10 and /20, (obinsonBs resolution rule allows deri!ing of the following clause' f61!f62! $$$ !f62!f
1!f 2!

$$$ !f p ! G1!G2! $$$ !Gn!1!2! $$$ !Q$ ------------ /&0

6t first glance, this approach leads to nothing, because /&0 see2s to be 2uch longer than /10, and than /20$ %till, this is not 100T true, because, additionally, we can reduce the repeating ato2s in f61!f62! $$$ !f62!f 1!f 2! $$$ !f p and in G1!G2! $$$ !Gn!1!2! $$$ !Q, and, finally, the set of ato2s, used in a clause for2, is fixed; 7f, in our set of clauses, there are ? different ato2s, then none of the clauses /initial, or generated by resolution0 will contain 2ore than ? ato2s /each with ot without negation0$ 6nd the total nu2ber of different clauses will ne!er exceed &? /missing, -itho$t negation, -ith negation0$ Thus, repeated applications of the resolution rule will SrotateS within this restricted Ssearch spaceS$ The s2art idea behind (obinsonBs resolution rule is as follows' it is a uni!ersal tool for deriving contradictions !rom inconsistent sets o! clauses; ?o other axio2s and rules of inference are necessary; 5ore precisely, it is uni!ersal, if used together with the following tri!ial rules of inference' 9!"vD!A --------------------------------- /#er2utation0, 9!Dv"!A 9!"v"!A ---------------------------------- /(eduction0$ 9!"!A The per2utation rule allows arbitrary reordering of ato2s in a clause /for exa2ple, 2o!ing < to right, and 2o!ing f< to left0$ The reduction rule allows reduction of repeating identical ato2s$ #9ercise /./.0$ eri!e these inference rules in the 2ini2al logic V*1-*+, 5#W$ ;heorem /./.) ( K.5.%obinson)$ 7n the classical propositional logic V*1-*11, 5#W, a finite set of propositional clauses is inconsistent, if and only if (obinsonBs resolution rule /together with per2utation and reduction rules0 allows deri!ing of a contradiction fro2 it$ 6ote$ 7n so2e other texts, this fact is called Sthe refutation-co2pleteness of the resolution ruleS for the propositional logic$

20+ Proo!$ 1$ 6s you ha!e pro!ed in the @xercises .$.$1 and .$.$2, all the for2ulas, deri!ed fro2 a set of for2ulas "1, "2, $$$ , "s by using the per2utation, resolution and reduction rules are conseQuences of "1, "2, $$$ , "s$ Hence, if these rules allow deri!ing a contradiction fro2 this set of for2ulas, then it /the set0 is inconsistent$ 2$ ?ow, let us assu2e that a set of propositional clauses "1, "2, $$$ , "s is inconsistent, i$e$ a contradiction 6If6 can be deri!ed fro2 it' V*1-*11, 5#W' "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- 6If6$ Then, under the classical truth tables, the con>unction "1I"2I $$$ I"s takes only false !alues /!erify;0$ *et us 2ark one of the ato2s /the ato2 <0 in it$ *et us denote' - Gy <!9i 3 the clauses containing < without negation, - Gy f<!A> 3 the clauses containing < with negation, - Gy Hk 3 the clauses that do not contain <$ 6ll the for2ulas 9i, A>, Hk are dis>unctions of ato2s /with or without negations0 that do not contain the ato2 <$ Thus "1I"2I $$$ I"s is eQui!alent to I/<!9i 0 I I/f<!A>0 I IHk$ ---------------------- /-0 *et us apply /the strange0 one of the distribution rules /Theore2 2$&$10' V*1*C, 5#W U- /6IG0!<a/6!<0I/G!<0$ Hence, "1I"2I $$$ I"s is eQui!alent to /< ! I9i 0 I /f< ! IA>0 I IHk$ 7f < is false, then this for2ula is eQui!alent to I9i I IHk, i$e$ I9i I IHk takes only false !alues$ 7f < is true, then it is eQui!alent to IAi I IHk, i$e$ IAi I IHk takes only false !alues$ Thus the dis>unction /I9i I IHk0 ! /IA> I IHk0 ---------------------- /.0 also takes only false !alues$ ?ow, let us, apply /the Snor2alS0 one of the distribution rules /Theore2 2$&$10' V*1-*C, 5#W U- /6!G0I<a/6I<0!/GI<0, obtaining that /.0 is eQui!alent to /I9i ! IA>0 I IHk$ -------------------- /,0

210 7$e$ this for2ula also takes only false !alues$ 6nd 3 i2portant note; 3 it does not contain the ato2 <$ 9inally, by applying, again, /the strange0 one of the distribution rules /Theore2 2$&$10' V*1-*C, 5#W U- /6IG0!<a/6!<0I/G!<0, we can conclude that /,0 is eQui!alent to II/9i ! A>0 I IHk, i$e$ to the set of clauses 9i ! A> and Hk /where i, >, k run o!er their initial ranges0$ 1hat does this achie!e2ent 2ean8 7f the set of propositional clauses "1, "2, $$$ , "s is inconsistent, then there is a set of clauses 9i ! A> and Hk /where i, >, k run o!er their initial ranges0, which is inconsistent as well, but which contains one ato2 less than "1, "2, $$$ , "s$ ?ow, i2agine, that, in the clause for2 /-0, we ha!e applied the resolution rule for the ato2 < in all the $ossible :ays /before applying, apply the per2utation rule to reorder ato2s 2o!ing < to right, and f< 3 to left0' 9i!<, f<!A> -----------------9i!A> 6fter this, apply the per2utation and reduction rules to reduce identical ato2s$ 7n this way we ha!e obtained exactly the abo!e-2entioned inconsistent set of clauses 9i ! A> and Hk /where i, >, k run o!er their initial ranges0$ Thus, if so2e set of propositional for2ulas "1, "2, $$$ , "s is inconsistent, then the resolution rule /togeher with the per2utation and reduction rules0 allows to deri!e fro2 it another inconsistent set of propositional for2ulas, which contains one ato2 less$ Gy iterating this process, at the end of it, we will ha!e an inconsistent set of propositional for2ulas built of a single ato2 G$ 7n a clause for2, there can be only one such set 3 the set G, fG$ This set represents a contradiction$ D$@$ $ 6s an exa2ple, let use (obinsonBs resolution rule to pro!e that G!<, <`G, G` U- GI $ *et us add f/GI 0 to pre2ises G!<, <`G, G` $ 1e 2ust pro!e that this set of - for2ulas is inconsistent$ 9irst, let us obtain clause for2s' G!< in clause for2 is G!<, <`G in clause for2 is f<!G, G` in clause for2 is fG! , f/GI 0 is eQui!alent to fG!f $

211 ?ow, let us apply resolution to deri!e a contradiction fro2 this set of clauses' G!<, f<!G, fG! , fG!f ' 9ro2 G!", R"!G we deri!e G, and ha!e now . clauses' G!<, f<!G, fG! , fG!f , G$ 9ro2 fG!D, fG!RD we deri!e fG, and ha!e now , clauses' G!<, f<!G, fG! , fG!f , G, fG$ 1e ha!e deri!ed a contradiction' G, fG$ This pro!es that the for2ula GI follows fro2 G!<, <`G, G` $ D$@$ $ #9ercise /./.+$ )se the resolution rule to pro!e the following' a0 6`G, f6`G U- G$ b0 /6`G0`6 U- 6 /#eirceBs *aw0$ c0 G`/<` 0, G`< U- G` /6xio2 *20$ d0 G` , <` U- G!<` $ /6xio2 *C0$ e0 6!G!<, G`6!<, 6`< U- <$ <rom a ProgrammerJs Point o! Vie: Rf course, when i2ple2enting the resolution rule in a co2puter progra2, we do not need decorations like the per2utation and reduction rules$ 7n a progra2, we will represent each clause f61!f62! $$$ !f62!G1!G2! $$$ !Gn as a pair of sets' negati!e ato2s, ? ^ X61, 62, $$$ , 62Y, and positi!e ato2s, # ^ XG1, G2, $$$ , GnY$ Rf course, the sets ?, # do not intersect /if they do, then this clause contains f<!<!$$$, i$e$ it is a tautology, and it can be dropped as Snoninfor2ati!eS0$ %esolution rule (nonDre!ined version). 7f there are two clauses ?1, #1 and ?2, #2 such that #1 and ?2 /or ?1 and #20 contain a co22on ato2 <, then we can deri!e the clause ?1)?2-X<Y, #1)#2-X<Y$ Rf course, the set union operation includes reduction of identical 2e2bers auto2atically$ The condition S#1 and ?2 /or ?1 and #20 contain a co22on ato2 <S can be expressed as S< in /?io#>0)/#io?>0S, where o 2eans set intersection$ 7f, in the resulting clause, the sets ?1)?2-X<Y, #1)#2-X<Y intersect, then we should ignore such result$ 9ortunately, this can be detected in ad!ance$ 7ndeed, /?1)?20o/#1)#20 ^ /?1o#10)/?1o#20)/?2o#10)/?2o#20 ^

212 /?1o#20)/?2o#10, because ?1o#1 and ?2o#2 are e2pty sets$ The set /?1o#20)/?2o#10 is exactly the set of all ato2s < allowing application of the resolution rule to clauses ?1, #1 and ?2, #2$ Hence, the sets ?1)?2-X<Y, #1)#2-X<Ywill not intersect, if and only if the set /?1o#20)/?2o#10 contains e9actly one atom <, i$e$, if and only if there is exactly one ato2 allowing application of the resolution rule$ %esolution rule (re!ined version). 7f there are two clauses ?1, #1 and ?2, #2 such that the set /?1o#20)/?2o#10 contains exactly one ato2 <, then we can deri!e the clause ?1)?2-X<Y, #1)#2-X<Y$ ?ow, let us try to design a progra2 i2ple2enting the last step of Spro!ing by resolutionS 3 suppose, we ha!e already the initial list of clauses, and we wish to apply the resolution rule trying to deri!e a contradiction$ The 2ain data storage will be a growing list of clauses /the main list0' /?1, #10, /?2, #20, $$$, /?k, #k0, $$$ 7t will start as the initial list, and each application of the resolution rule will append a new clause to it$ To guarantee a success, we 2ust apply the resolution rule in all the $ossible :ays, i$e$ we 2ust scan all pairs of clauses /?i, #i0/?>, #>0, where i ^ 1, 2, $$$4 > ^ i\1, i\2, $$$ To achie!e this, let us use the following pair enu2eration process' /?1, #10/?2, #20 3 first, scan all pairs /i, >0 with BW0, i_>$ /?1, #10/?&, #&0, /?2, #20/?&, #&0 3 after this, scan all pairs /i, >0 with BW+, i_>$ /?1, #10/?-, #-0, /?2, #20/?-, #-0, /?&, #&0/?-, #-0 3 after this, scan all pairs /i, >0 with BW,, i_>$ @tc$ The process will stop, when we arri!e at the le!el >, and the 2ain list contains less than > /in fact, >-10 clauses$ 9or a set of n ato2s, there are only &n different clauses$ 9or exa2ple, for two ato2s 6, G, there are + different clauses' f6!fG, f6!G, 6!fG, 6!G, f6, 6, fG, G, and the e2pty clause /contradiction0$ 7$e$, if we will prohibit duplicate clauses in the 2ain list, then our process will always stop$ Thus, the following pseudo-code will do /no string processing, no expression parsing necessary;0'

21& !unction propositional resolution /initial list0 X of clauses Y begin i! initial list contains contradiction then return T()@ X contradiction found Y 2ain list ^ eli2inate duplicates /initial list0 !or > ^ 2 by 1 begin D i! count /2ain list0 _ > then return 96*%@ X no contradiction deri!ed Y D else D !or i ^ 1 to >-1 by 1 D E X consider i-th and >-th clauses in the 2ain list' /?i, #i0, /?>, #>0 Y D E i! /?io#>0)/#io?>0 contains exactly one ele2ent < then X o 2eans set intersection Y D E begin D E D Xapply resolutionY D E D i! /?i)?>-X<Y, #i)#>-X<Y0 not in 2ain list then D E D begin D E D E add it to 2ain list D E D E i! 2ain list contains contradiction then return T()@ X contradiction deri!ed Y D E end D E D end end end #9ercise /./.,$ e!elop a co2puter progra2 i2ple2enting the abo!e pseudocode$ 6ote$ %ee 2y !ersion of the progra2 in <\\' header file, i2ple2entation, download the entire Gorland <\\ pro>ect /200" :ip0$ 3arning8 espite its beauty, resolution 2ethod cannot o!erco2e the general co2plexity proble2, 2entioned at the end of %ection -$2' in the classical propositional logic, the task of reasoning is Mco-?#-co2pleteN$ 6nd a closer analysis shows that, in the :orst $ossible case, gi!en a set of for2ulas of total length n, the ti2e reQuired by resolution 2ethod will be exponentional 3 for exa2ple, 2<n seconds$ Gut in 2any $ractical situations, experience shows that resolution 2ethod sol!es its task in acceptable ti2e$ 7n particular, #rolog interpreters are using resolution, and are sol!ing 2any tasks !ery well;

21-

/.1. &erbrandJs ;heorem

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; HacQues Herbrand /1+0C-1+&10 S$$$ 6fter lea!ing AFttingen, Herbrand decided on a holiday in the 6lps before his intended return to 9rance$ Howe!er he was ne!er to co2plete his plans for he died in a 2ountaineering accident in the 6lps only a few days after his holiday began$ His death at the age of 2& in one of the tragic losses to 2athe2atics$S /according to 5acTutor History of 5athe2atics archi!e0$ Herbrand pro!ed his fa2ous theore2 in 1+2+' K.&erbrand. (echerches sur la thiorie de la di2onstration$ #h$ $ Thesis, )ni!ersity of #aris, 1+&0 /appro!ed in 6pril 1+2+0$ )nlike the proof presented below, the original proof of HerbrandBs Theore2 does not depend on AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2 /or 5odel @xistence Theore20$ Herbrand co2pleted his #h$ $ thesis in 1+2+$ 7n the sa2e 1+2+ AFdel co2pleted his doctoral dissertation about co2pleteness /see %ection -$&0$ 7n fact, HerbrandBs 2ethod allows pro!ing of AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore2, but he /Herbrand0 Sdid not notice itS$ 1hy8 %ee
.amuel %. 'uss. Rn HerbrandBs Theore2$ <*ecture ?otes in <o2puter %cienceS, Vol$+,0, 1++., %pringer-Verlag, pp$1+.-20+ /a!ailable online0$

The fla!our of this fa2ous theore2 can be best presented in its si2plest !ersion$ 7n this !ersion, 9/x0 is a Quantifier-free for2ula containing only one !ariable x$ HerbrandBs Theore2 says' The for2ula x9/x0 is logically !alid, if and only if there is a finite set of constant /or, closed0 ter2s t1, $$$, tn such that the dis>unction 9/t10!$$$!9/tn0 is logically !alid$ Rr, eQui!alently /!ia AFdelBs <o2pleteness Theore20, The for2ula x9/x0 is pro!able in the classical logic, if and only if there is a finite set of constant /closed0 ter2s t1, $$$, tn such that the dis>unction 9/t10!$$$!9/tn0 is pro!able in the classical logic$ 6s we will see in the proof, HerbrandBs Theore2 is ScausedS by the si2ple SfactS that in any proof of x9/x0 only a finite set of ter2s could be used$ ?ow, 2ore precisely$ *et * be a predicate language, containing at least one ob>ect constant, and let 9

21. be a Quantifier-free for2ula$ 7dea [1 /author80$ The for2ula p/c10 I Q/c2, f/x00 is Quantifie-free /c1, c2 are ob>ect constants, f 3 a function constant, p, Q 3 predicate constants0$ 7n a sense, any SclosedS interpretation do2ain for this for2ula 2ust contain ob>ects denoted by the ter2s c1, c2, f/c10, f/c20, f/f/c100, f/f/c200,$$$ %o, let us define the so-called &erbrandJs universe of the for2ula 9 /let us denote it by H)90 as the 2ini2u2 set of all constant /closed0 ter2s such that' a0 7f c is an ob>ect constant occurring in 9, then c is in H)9$ b0 7f 9 does not contain ob>ect constants, then one of the constants of the language * is in H)9$ c0 7f ter2s t1, $$$, tk are in H)9, and f is a k-ary function constant occurring in 9, then the ter2 f/t1, $$$, tk0 is in H)9$ #9ercise /.1.). Verify that H)9 is a non-e2pty finite or countable set /pro!ide an algorith2 generating the 2e2bers of H)90$ ;heorem /.1.) (HerbrandBs Theore2 3 the si2plest case0$ *et * be a predicate language, containing at least one ob>ect constant, and let 9/x0 be a Quantifierfree for2ula containing only one free !ariable x$ Then the for2ula x9/x0 is logically valid (i.e. $rovable in the classical $redicate logic), if and only if there is a finite set of ter2s t1, $$$, tn fro2 H)9 such that the dis>unction 9/t10!$$$!9/tn0 is logically valid (i.e. $rovable in the classical $redicate logic)$ Proo!. *et us assu2e the contrary 3 that none of the dis>unctions 9/t10!$$$!9/tn0 is logically !alid /ti-s are ter2s fro2 H)90$ 7dea [2 3 then the following theory T is consistent' T ^ X f9/t0 U t is a ter2 fro2 H)9Y$ 7ndeed, if T would be inconsistent, then there would be a T-proof of so2e for2ula GIfG$ 7n this proof, only a finite set of the axio2s f9/t0 would be used, i$e$ for so2e ter2s t1, $$$, tn fro2 H)9' V*1-*1., 5#, AenW' f9/t10, $$$, f9/tn0 U- GIfG$ Hence, by eduction Theore2 2 /it is applicable here, because 9/x0 contains only one free !ariable, and ti-s are constant ter2s, i$e$ e!ery f9/ti0 is a closed for2ula0'

21, V*1-*1., 5#, AenW' U- f9/t10I$$$ If9/tn0 ` GIfG, V*1-*1., 5#, AenW' U- f/9/t10!$$$ !9/tn00 ` GIfG, and thus, V*1-*1., 5#, AenW' U- 9/t10!$$$ !9/tn0$ 7$e$, 9/t10!$$$ !9/tn0 is logically !alid$ This contradicts our assu2ption, that none of the dis>unctions 9/t10!$$$!9/tn0 is logically !alid$ Hence, T is a consistent theory$ 7dea [& 3 if T is consistent, then, by the 5odel @xistence Theore2, there is a 2odel H of T$ 7n this 2odel, all the axio2s of T are true, i$e$ so are all the for2ulas f9/t0 with t fro2 the set H)9$ 7dea [- 3 let us restrict the do2ain of the 2odel H to those ele2ents of it, which are interpretations of ter2s fro2 the set H)9, and let us restrict the entire interpretation correspondingly$ *et us denote this new interpretation by H1$ Then, a0 6ll the for2ulas f9/t0 /with t fro2 the set H)90 are true in H1$ 7ndeed, f9/t0 contains only constant ter2s fro2 H)9 /idea [1 working;0, and all of the2 ha!e the sa2e interpretations in H1 that they had in H$ Thus, if f9/t0 was true in H, it re2ains true in H1$ b0 Hence, the for2ula xf9/x0 is true in H1 /because the do2ain of H1 consists only of those ele2ents, which are interpretations of ter2s fro2 the set H)90$ c0 Hence, the for2ula x9/x0 is false in H1$ This contradicts the logical !alidity of x9/x0$ D$@$ $ #9ercise /.1.0. (epeat the abo!e proof, pro!ing a 2ore general for2 of HerbrandBs Theore2' ;heorem /.1.0 /HerbrandBs Theore2 3 the si2plest case0$ *et * be a predicate language, containing at least one ob>ect constant, and let 9/x1, $$$, x20 be a Quantifier-free for2ula containing only 2 free !ariables x1, $$$, x2$ The for2ula x1$$$x2 9/x1, $$$, x20 is logically valid, if and only if there is a finite set of 2-tuples tt1, $$$, ttn of ter2s fro2 H)9 such that the dis>unction 9/tt10!$$$!9/ttn0 is logically valid$

21= 6s you !erified it in the @xercise -$1$1, any for2ula A is logically !alid, if and only if fA is unsatisfiable$ Thus, x1$$$x2 9/x1, $$$, x20 is logically !alid, if and only if x1$$$x2 f9/x1, $$$, x20 is unsatisfiable$ Rn the other hand, 9/tt10!$$$!9/ttn0 is logically !alid, if and only if f9/tt10I$$$If9/ttn0 is unsatisfiable$ ?ow, let us replace 9 by f9, and we ha!e pro!ed ;heorem /.1.+ /HerbrandBs Theore2 3 a 2ore useful alternati!e for20$ *et * be a predicate language, containing at least one ob>ect constant, and let 9/x1, $$$, x20 be a Quantifier-free for2ula containing only 2 free !ariables x1, $$$, x2$ The for2ula x1$$$x2 9/x1, $$$, x20 is unsatis!iable /i$e$ inconsistent in the classical logic), if and only if there is a finite set of 2tuples tt1, $$$, ttn of ter2s fro2 H)9 such that the con>unction 9/tt10I$$$I9/ttn0 is unsatis!iable /i$e$ inconsistent in the classical logic)$ 6ote. 6s you !erified it in the @xercise -$&$,, a set of for2ulas is inconsistent in the classical logic, if and only if it is unsatisfiable$ 1hy is this for2 S2ore usefulS8 *et us try applying this for2 of HerbrandBs Theore2 to sets of for2ulas in clause for2$ 10 The S2eaningSof any set of closed for2ulas 91, $$$ , 9k is represented by their con>unction 91I $$$ I9k$ 20 6 clause is any dis>unction of ato2ic for2ulas or their negations$ 9or exa2ple, fp/c10 ! p/c20 ! Q/x, f/y00, or p/x0 ! fQ/y, f/:00$ The S2eaningS of a set of clauses is represented by their uni!ersally Quantified con>unction$ 9or exa2ple, xy:/Vfp/c10 ! p/c20 ! Q/x, f/y00W I Vp/x0 ! fQ/y, f/:00W0$ &0 6s we know fro2 the pre!ious %ection .$-, the set 91, $$$ 9k can be reduced to a clause fro2, i$e$ there is a set of clauses % such that 91, $$$ , 9k is unsatisfiable, if and only if % is unsatisfiable$ ?ow, let us apply the abo!e for2 of HerbrandBs Theore2 /Theore2 .$,$&0$ 7f % contains 2 !ariables /of course, all of the2 are uni!ersally Quantified0, then % is unsatisfiable, if and only if there is a finite set of 2-tuples tt1, $$$, ttn of ter2s fro2 H)% such that the con>unction %/tt10I$$$I%/ttn0 is unsatisfiable$ 7f we take a clause fro2 %, and substitute so2e ter2s fro2 H)% for all its !ariables, then we obtain a /so-called0 ground clause of %$ 9or exa2ple, if % ^ X fp/c10 ! p/c20 ! Q/x, f/y004 p/x0 ! fQ/y, f/:00 Y, then the substitution X c1 P x4 c2 P y4 f/c20 P : Y yields the following two ground clauses'

21C fp/c10 ! p/c20 ! Q/f/c10, f/c200, p/c10 ! fQ/c2, f/f/c2000$ Rf course, the con>unction %/tt10I$$$I%/ttn0 is a set of ground clauses$ Thus, i! . is unsatis!iable, then there is an unsatis!iable !inite set o! ground clauses o! .. 6nd con!ersely8 7f there is an unsatisfiable finite set < ^ X<1, $$$, <nYof ground clauses of %, then each <i is generated by so2e substitution, which can be represented as an 2-tuple tti of ter2s fro2 H)%$ 7f X<1, $$$, <nY is unsatisfiable, then X%/tt10, $$$, %/ttn0Y 3 as a super-set of the for2er, is unsatisfiable, too /Se!en 2ore unsatisfiableS0$ ?ow, if % would be satisfiable, then /because all the !ariables of % are 2eant uni!ersally Quantified0 so would be the for2ula %/tt10I $$$I%/ttn0$ <ontradiction$ Thus, we ha!e pro!ed another for2 of HerbrandBs Theore2$ ;heorem /.1., /HerbrandBs Theore2 3 the 2ost useful for2$ 6uthor 3 Herbert G$@nderton80$ *et * be a predicate language, containing at least one ob>ect constant, and let 91, $$$, 9k be a set of closed for2ulas in *$ Then this set is unsatis!iable, if and only if its clause for2 allows an unsatis!iable finite set of ground clauses$ 1hy is this for2 Sthe 2ost usefulS8 Gecause /let us ignore perfor2ance proble2s0, a0 The clause for2 of 91, $$$, 9k is a finite set %, generated by a si2ple /but a !ery slow0 algorith2 /see %ections .$1-.$-0$ b0 HerbrandBs uni!erse H)% is a finite or infinite set of constant ter2s, generated by a si2ple algorith2 /see @xercise .$,$10$ c0 Thus, all the possible finite sets of ground clauses of % can be generated by a si2ple co2bination of the abo!e two algorith2s$ d0 )nsatisfiability of each finite set of ground clauses can be detected by a si2ple /but a !ery slow0 algorith2 /see *e22a .$,$. below0$ Thus, we ha!e here a sim$le algorithm /but !ery slow one0 !or checking $rovability in the classical $redicate logic. Lemma /.1./$ 6 finite set of ground clauses is unsatisfiable, if and only if the con>unction of these clauses is unsatisfiable under the classical truth tables$ Proo!$ 7n the abo!e exa2ple of ground clauses'

21+ fp/c10 ! p/c20 ! Q/f/c10, f/c200, p/c10 ! fQ/c2, f/f/c2000, we ha!e . different ato2s' p/c10, p/c20, Q/f/c10, f/c200, Q/c2, f/f/c2000$ *et us denote these ato2s by D1, D2, D&, D-$ Thus we obtain the following propositional for2ula /fD1 ! D2 ! D&0 I /D1 ! fD-0$ 1$ 7f this for2ula cannot be satisfied under the classical truth tables, then we cannot assign truth !alues to predicates p, Q in a way 2aking all the corresponding clauses true$ 7$e$ then the corresponding set of ground clauses also cannot be satisfied$ D$@$ $ 2$ 7f this for2ula can be satisfied under the classical truth tables, then we can find a truth !alue assigne2ent 2aking it true, for exa2ple' D1^false /this 2akes the first dis>unction true0, D-^false /this 2akes the second dis>unction true0$ ?ow, we can define the following interpretation H 2aking the corresponding ground clauses true' ^ X c1, c2, f/c10, f/c20, f/f/c20 Y /the set of all ter2s appearing in the clauses, i$e$ a subset of the Herbrand uni!erse04
H

p/c10^false, Q/c2, f/f/c200^false /these assigne2ents 2ake both ground clauses true0$ 6ll the other truth !alues are irrele!ant, so, we can define the2, for exa2ple, as follows' p/c20^true, p/f/c100^true, p/f/c200^true, p/f/f/c200^true4 Q/x, y0^true, if x is not c2, or y is not f/f/c20$ D$@$ $ $$$ To be continued$ $$$ 9urther reading' Michael 7enesereth. <o2putational *ogic /see at http'PPlogic$stanford$eduPclassesPcs1.=P200.fallPcs1.=$ht2l0$

220

/.2. %esolution Method !or Predicate <ormulas

3arning8 The principal results of this %ection are !alid only for the classical logic; 7f we are interested only in deri!ing contradictions fro2 inconsistent sets of for2ulas, then we can note that a set of closed predicate for2ulas is inconsistent /i$e$ allows deri!ing a contradiction in the classical logic0, if and only if the con>unction of these for2ulas is unsatisfiable /@xercise -$&$,0$ Thus, instead of the initial set, we can analy:e the set of clause for2s of these for2ulas$ 7ndeed, if we deri!e a contradiction fro2 the set of clause for2s, then this set is unsatisfiable, i$e$, by Theore2 .$-$2, so is the initial set, and hence, the initial set is inconsistent$ 6nd con!ersely, if the initial set of for2ulas is consistent, then it is satisfiable, i$e$ so is the set of clause for2s, i$e$ we will be not able to deri!e a contradiction fro2 it$ The next step forward 3 in clause for2s, we can dro$ all the universal @uanti!iers$ 7ndeed, if we deri!e a contradiction fro2 a set uni!ersally Quantified clause for2s, then we can deri!e it fro2 the corresponding nonQuantified set /we can apply the Aen inference rule 9/x0 U- x9/x0 to obtain the Quantified for2s fro2 the non-Quantified ones0$ 6nd con!ersely, if we deri!e a contradiction fro2 a set of non-Quantified clause for2s, then we can deri!e it fro2 the corresponding uni!ersally Quantified set /apply the 6xio2 *12' x9/x0 ` 9/x0 to obtain non-Quantified for2s fro2 the Quantified ones0$ 6fter dropping Quantifiers, sets of clause for2s beco2e si2ply sets of clauses /con>unction of con>unctions is eQui!alent to a S>ointS con>unction0$ Thus, we can concentrate on sets of clauses that do not contain Quantifiers, like as the one obtained in %ection .$-' ` g/u0bu, ` g/u0b1, yb1, :b1, g/u0^y]: `$ ?ote that clauses consist of atomic for2ulas only$ 6nother step forward 3 in clause for2s, we can rename variables in such a :ay that t:o clauses do not contain common variables$ 9or exa2ple, we can replace the abo!e set of clauses by the following one' ` g/u10bu1, ` g/u20b1, yb1, :b1, g/u&0^y]: `$

221 6t first glance, this step 2ay see2 SredundantS$ %till, note that, in fact, it allows co2plete separation of clauses Sby the 2eaningS, and this separation will greatly si2plify processing of clauses by 2eans of substitution /see below0$ 1ill the (obinsonBs resolution rule re2ain a uni!ersal tool for deri!ing contradictions also fro2 inconsistent sets of predicate for2ulas /i$e$ sets of non-Quantified clauses, consisting of ato2ic for2ulas08 *et us i2agine, we ha!e deri!ed the following two for2ulas /p is a unary predicate constant, 0 3 an ob>ect constant0' p/x10 ! 9/x1, y10, fp/00 ! A/x2, y20$ To apply the (obinsonBs resolution rule, we 2ust first, in p/x10, substitute 0 for x1' p/00 ! 9/0, y10, fp/00 ! A/x2, y20$ ?ow, we can apply the resolution rule, obtaining the for2ula 9/0, y10 ! A/x2, y20$ %urprisingly, this si2ple idea of Suni!ication by substitutionS appears to be sufficient to 2ake (obinsonBs resolution rule a uni!ersal tool for deri!ing contradictions also fro2 inconsistent sets of predicate for2ulas; 6nd, in general, the necessary substitutions are not 2uch 2ore co2plicated than in the abo!e si2plest exa2ple$ The substitution rule allows, in so2e clause <, replacing of all occurrences of so2e !ariable x by any ter2 t$ ;heorem /.2.) ( K. 5. %obinson)$ 7n the classical predicate logic V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, a set of predicate clauses is inconsistent4 if and only if (obinsonBs resolution rule /together with per2utation, reduction and substitution rules0 allows deri!ing a contradiction fro2 it$ 6ote$ 7n so2e other texts, this fact is called Sthe refutation-co2pleteness of the resolution ruleS$ Proo!$ 1$ 6ll the for2ulas, deri!ed fro2 a set of clauses "1, "2, $$$ , "s by using per2utation, reduction, substitution and resolution rules, are conseQuences of "1, "2, $$$ , "s$ Hence, if these rules allow deri!ing a contradiction fro2 this set of clauses, then it /the set0 is inconsistent$ 2$ ?ow, let us assu2e that the set of clauses % ^ X"1, "2, $$$ , "sY is inconsistent$ Then it is unsatisfiable /@xercise -$&$,0$ 6nd then, by HerbrandBs

222 Theore2, it allows a finite unsatisfiable set of ground clauses <1, $$$, <n$ @ach <i of these ground clauses is obtained fro2 so2e clause in % by 2eans of so2e substitution subi /of ter2s fro2 the Herbrand uni!erse H)%0, i$e$ by applying the substitution rule$ Gy *e22a .$,$., the set <1, $$$, <n is unsatisfiable, if and only if the con>unction <1I $$$ I<n is unsatisfiable under the classical truth tables, i$e$, i! and only i! the set <1, $$$, <n is inconsistent$ 6nd, by Theore2 .$.$1, a finite set of propositional clauses is inconsistent4 if and only if (obinsonBs resolution rule /together with per2utation and reduction rules0 allows deri!ing a contradiction fro2 it$ D$@$ $ %e!inements E .te$ ) (<irst o! the ;:o .mart Ideas) *et us exa2ine once 2ore the part two of the proof of Theore2 .$=$1, where a specific /hopeless;0 Sproof strategyS is used$ 9irst, since two clauses "i do not contain co22on !ariables, we can think that each of the substitutions sub> is applied to a single clause, i$e$ we can think, in fact, of a /finite0 set of substitutions subi>, where each subi> is applied only to the clause "i$ *et us denote by 9$sub the result of application of the substitution sub to the for2ula 9$ %econd, to deri!e a contradiction fro2 X"1, "2, $$$ , "sY, we 2ay apply, !irst, all the necessary substitutions /stage 1 3 substitutions only;0, and, a!ter this, all the necessary per2utations, reductions and resolutions /stage 2 3 no 2ore substitutions;0$ This is exactly the abo!e-2entioned specific /hopeless;0 Sproof strategyS$ 1hy hopeless8 Gecause, before applying the substitutions subi>, we 2ust !ind them among all the $ossible substitutions of ter2s fro2 the infinite set H)%$ This is a perfor2ance proble2 that does not affect our abo!e theoretical considerations, but could 2ake their result useless$ The s2art ideas [1 and [2 introduced below, allow to restrict the substitution Ssearch s$aceS considerably$ 72agine one of the resolutions of stage 2, where <1 is an ato2ic for2ula' 91!<1, f<1!A1 ----------------, 91!A1 7f both pre2ises 91!<1, f<1!A1 are co2ing directly fro2 stage 1, then they

22& ha!e been obtained fro2 so2e initial clauses 9!<, f !A by two substitutions sub1 and sub2 such that' 91 is 9$sub1, <1 is <$sub1, f<1 is f $sub2, A1 is A$sub2$ 1e can call such pair of substitutions a uni!ier, because <$sub1 and $sub2 represent the sa2e ato2ic for2ula /co2pare the exa2ple before the text of Theore2 .$=$10$ 7f one /or both0 of the pre2ises does not co2e directly fro2 stage 1, then it is either an initial clause, or the result of a pre!ious resolution$ Gy putting an e2pty substitution /which does no change for2ulas0 instead of sub1 or sub2 /or both0 we can still think of the pre2ises as obtained by a unification$ 6nd, finally, if, to deri!e a contradiction G, fG fro2 "1, "2, $$$ , "s, we do not need resolution at all, then we need, ne!ertheless, unifying substitutions, con!erting two clauses G1 and fG2 into G and fG$ Thus /s2art idea [10, to derive contradictions, :e can do :ith one s$eci!ic kind o! the substitution rule E the uni!ication rule' a0 Take two clauses, 2ark a positi!e ato2 < in the first clause, and a negati!e ato2 f in the second one$ Thus, we are considering two clauses' 9!< and f !A$ b0 Try to find two substitutions sub1 and sub2 such that <$sub1 and $sub2 represent the sa2e ato2 <1$ 6nd you do not need to introduce !ariables of the other clauses; 7f you succeed, you ha!e obtained two clauses' 91!<1, f<1!A1, where <1 is <$sub1 /^ $sub20, 91 is 9$sub1 and A1 is A$sub2$ %ince clauses do not contain co22on !ariables, the union sub1)sub2 is a substitution /a unifier of < and 0$ c0 6pply resolution, obtaining the clause 91!A1$ 1e ha!e pro!ed the following refined !ersion of Theore2 .$=$1' ;heorem /.2.0 ( K.5.%obinson)$ 7n the classical predicate logic V*1-*11, *12*1., 5#, AenW, a set of predicate clauses is inconsistent4 if and only if (obinsonBs resolution rule /together with per2utation, reduction and uni!ication rules0 allows deri!ing a contradiction fro2 it$ 1hy is this refine2ent i2portant8 Gecause now, instead of trying out all the possible substitutions /of ter2s fro2 H)% for clause !ariables0, we can concentrate on substitutions that unify two clauses$ This allows to restrict the substitution search s$ace considerably$

22%e!inements E .te$ 0 (.econd o! the ;:o .mart Ideas) .ubstitution >5lgebra> 7n general, each substitution in!ol!es a list of distinct !ariables x1, $$$, xk and a list of ter2s t1, $$$,tk$ 6ll occurrences of the !ariable xi are replaced by the ter2 ti$ Thus, this operation can be 2ost naturally represented by the set of pairs X t1 P x1, $$$, tk P xk Y$ The order of pairs ti P xi is irrele!ant because of the following Santi-cascadingS condition' the new occurrences of the !ariables x1, $$$, xk created by the substitution, are not replaced$ The result of application of so2e substitution sub to so2e expression /ter2 or for2ula0 9, is usually denoted by 9$sub$ 9or exa2ple, if 9 is p/x, f/y00 and sub ^ X f/:0 P x, : P y Y, then 9$sub is p/f/:0, f/:00$ The e2pty set of pairs XY represents the so-called e2pty substitution$ Rf course, 9$XY ^ 9, for any expression 9$ 7f the !ariable sets of two substitutions sub1 and sub2 do not intersect, and the ter2s of sub1 do not contain the !ariables of sub2, and the ter2s of sub2 do not contain the !ariables of sub1, then the union sub1)sub2 /of two sets of pairs0 defines a substitution$ %till, the 2ost i2portant operation on substitutions is com$osition$ 7f sub1 and sub2 are two substitutions, then sub1$sub2 denotes the co2posed substitution Sapply first sub1, and after this, apply sub2S$ 9or exa2ple, if sub1 ^ X f/:0 P x, : P y Y and sub2 ^ X f/w0 P : Y, then sub1$sub2 ^ X f/f/w00 P x, f/w0 P y, f/w0 P : Y$ #9ercise /.2.0. a0 Verify that the substitution co2position is associati!e and non-co22utati!e /pro!ide a counter-exa2ple0, and that the e2pty substitution is the only Sunit ele2entS /i$e$ XY$sub ^ sub$XY ^ sub for any substitution sub0$ b0 7s there any algebraic correlation between co2position and union of substitutions8 Most 7eneral ni!iers How do beha!e unifiers in the substitution SalgebraS8 6ssu2e, sub1 and sub2 are two different unifiers of the sa2e pair of expressions 9 and A$ 7$e$ 9$sub1 ^ A$sub1, 9$sub2 ^ A$sub2$ 7f there would be a substitution sub such that sub2^sub1$sub, then we could

22. say that sub1 is a no less general uni!ier than sub2$ 9or exa2ple, let us try to unify the first 2e2bers of the following two for2ulas' p/x10 ! 9/x1, y10, fp/f/x200 ! A/x2, y20$ 7t would be natural to use the substitution sub1 ^ X f/:0 P x1, : P x2 Y, obtaining p/f/:00 ! 9/f/:0, y10, fp/f/:00 ! A/:, y20$ Gut, in principle, one could use also the substitution sub2 ^ X f/f/:00 P x1, f/:0 P x2 Y, obtaining p/f/f/:000 ! 9/f/f/:00, y10, fp/f/f/:000 ! A/f/:0, y20$ Rf course, sub1 is SbetterS, because sub2 ^ sub1$X f/:0 P : Y$ 1hy8 7f our purpose was unifying p/x10 with p/f/x200, then sub1 perfor2s this /as well as sub20, but it Slea!es 2ore spaceS for subseQuent substitutions /than sub20$ 7ndeed, to continue after sub1, instead of sub2 ^ sub1$X f/:0 P : Y, we can choose also sub& ^ sub1$X g/:0 P : Y etc$ Thus, using a 2ore general unifier is preferable$ %o, let us call a unifier sub of two expressions 9 and A a most general uni!ier (mgu) of 9 and A, if and only if it is no less general than any other unifier of 9 and A /i$e$ if and only if, for any other unifier subB of 9 and A, there is a substitution subBB such that subB ^ sub$subBB0$ Lemma /.2.+. 7f two expressions lists 99 and AA are unifiable, then there exists an 2gu of 99 and AA$ Proo! /long, but easy0$ *et us define the total length of an expression list as follows' a0 /ato2ic expressions0 the total length of a constant or of a !ariable is 1, b0 the total length of the expression list e1, $$$, en is the su2 of the total lengths of the 2e2bers e1, $$$, en, c0 /co2posite expressions0 the total length of the expression f/t1, $$$, tn0 /where f is function constant or predicate constant0, is the total length of the expression list t1, $$$, tn plus 1$ *et us pro!e our *e22a by induction using 2in/totalZlength/990, totalZlength/AA00 as the induction para2eter$ 10 Induction base. The total length of 99 or AA is 1$ *et us assu2e totalZlength/990^1$ a0 99 is a constant c$ Then 99 and AA are unifiable, if and only if AA is the sa2e constant c$ Then, e2pty substitution is the only possible 2gu /!erify0$

22, b0 99 is a !ariable x$ Then, 99 and AA are not unifiable, if' b10 AA is a list of 2ore than one expression, or, b20 AA is a co2posite expression that contains x /then any substitution of t for x 2akes AA longer than t0$ 6nd, 99 and AA are unifiable, if and only if AA is a !ariable, or AA is a co2posite expression that does not contain x$ 7f AA is the !ariable x, then the e2pty substitution is the only possible 2gu /!erify0$ 7f AA is a !ariable y /other than x0, then all unifications of 99 and AA ha!e the for2 X t P x, t P y, $$$ Y, where t is any ter2$ 62ong the2, 2gu-s are X : P x, : P y Y, where : is any !ariable /!erify0$ 7f AA is a co2posite expression that does not contain x, then all unifications of 99 and AA ha!e the for2 X AA$sub P x, $$$ Y ) sub, where sub is any substitution that does not substitute for x /!erify0$ 62ong the2, 2gu-s are X AA$sub P xY) sub, where sub substitutes distinct !ariables for distinct !ariables /!erify0$ This co2pletes the induction base$ 20 Induction ste$. 6ssu2e, 2in/totalZlength/990, totalZlength/AA00^n, where nb1$ 7f 99 and AA are unifiable, then, as lists, they contain the sa2e nu2ber of 2e2bers$ 2a0 99 and AA contain are single expressions$ %ince 2in/totalZlength/990, totalZlength/AA00b1, both are co2posite expressions 3 suppose, 99 is f/s1, $$$, s20 /where f is function constant or predicate constant, and s1, $$$, s2 are ter2s0, and AA is g/t1, $$$, tn0 /where g is function constant or predicate constant, and t1, $$$, tn are ter2s0$ 99 and AA are unifiable, if and only if a0 f and g represent the sa2e constant, and b0 the lists s1, $$$, s2 and t1, $$$, tn are unifiable$ Thus, the unifiers of 99 and AA coincide with the unifiers of lists$ %ince 2in/totalZlength/s1, $$$, s20, totalZlength/t1, $$$, tn00_n, by the induction assu2ption, *e22a .$=$& holds for the lists, i$e$ it holds also for 99 and AA$ 2b0 99 and AA contain two or 2ore 2e2bers$ 7f 99 and AA are unifiable, then so are their first 2e2bers /SheadsS0 91 and A1$ *et us denote by 992 and AA2 the rests of lists /StailsS0$ %ince 2in/totalZlength/910, totalZlength/A100_n, by the induction assu2ption, there exists at least one 2gu of 91 and A1$ The sa2e is true also for 992 and AA2$ *et us denote by 2gu1 an arbitrary 2gu of 91 and A1 ?ow, let us consider an arbitrary unifier u of 99 and AA$ 7t 2ust unify also 91

22= with A1, and 992 with AA2$ Hence, u ^ 2gu1$sub1, where sub1 is so2e substitution$ 1e know that 91$2gu1 ^ A1$2gu1$ Gut what about 992$2gu1 and AA2$2gu18 *et us apply sub1 to both' 992$2gu1$sub1 ^ 992$u AA2$2gu1$sub1 ^ AA2$u %ince u unifies 992 with AA2, 992$2gu1$sub1 ^ AA2$2gu1$sub1, i$e$ sub1 unifies 992$2gu1 with AA2$2gu1$ *et us denote by 2gu12 an arbitrary 2gu of 992$2gu1 and AA2$2gu1$ Then, sub1 ^ 2gu12$sub12, where sub12 is so2e substitution, and 2gu1$2gu12$sub12 ^ 2gu1$sub1^u$ Thus, we ha!e established that for an arbitrary unifier u of 99 and AA there is a substitution sub12 such that 2gu1$2gu12$sub12 ^ u$ Rf course, the co2position 2gu1$2gu12 unifies 99 with AA /since it unifies 91 with A1, and 992 with AA20$ Hence, 2gu1$2gu12 is an 2gu of 99 and AA$ D$@$ $ ni!ication 5lgorithm How could we deter2ine, can two ato2ic for2ulas < and be unified, or not8 This proble2 can be sol!ed by the following si2ple pseudo-code Aet5ostAeneral)nifier, which follows the abo!e proof of *e22a .$=$&, and where e9$ression lists are defined in *7%# style' 10 @ach !ariable, constant, function constant and predicate constant is an expression list /consisting of a single 2e2ber0$ 20 7f s1, $$$, sn are expression lists, then the list of s1, $$$, sn is an expression list /consisting of 2e2bers s1, $$$, sn0$ The first 2e2ber s1 is called the head of the list, and the list of s2, $$$, sn 3 the tail of the list$ Thus, instead of, for exa2ple, f/t1, $$, tn0, we use si2ply the /*7%# style0 list f, t1, $$, tn$ This si2plifies the recursion interface$ This progra2 detects, are two expression lists unifiable, or not, and, if they are, it returns one of their 2ost general unifiers$

22C !unction Aet5ostAeneral)nifier /expressionZlist1, expressionZlist20 begin i! length/expressionZlist10 b 1 and length/expressionZlist20 b 1 then begin --- h1 ^ head/expressionZlist104 --- h2 ^ head/expressionZlist204 --- subH ^ Aet5ostAeneral)nifier/h1, h204 --- i! subH ^ false then return false4 Xunification i2possibleY --- t1 ^ tail/expressionZlist10$subH4 --- t2 ^ tail/expressionZlist20$subH4 --- subT ^ Aet5ostAeneral)nifier/t1, t204 --- i! subT ^ false then return false4 Xunification i2possible, note that subH is a 2gu;Y --- return subH$%ubT4 Xthis co2position unifies expressionZlist1 and expressionZlist2Y end Xnow, expressionZlist1, or expressionZlist2 consists of a single 2e2ber' 21 or 22Y i! length/expressionZlist10 ^ 1 and 21 is !ariable then begin DDD i! 21 ^ expressionZlist2 then return XY4 Xe2pty substitutionY --- i! 21 occurs in expressionZlist2 then return false4 Xunification i2possible 3 !erify;Y --- return XexpressionZlist2 P 21Y4 Xsubstitute expressionZlist2 for 21Y end i! length/expressionZlist20 ^ 1 and 22 is !ariable then begin DDD i! 22 ^ expressionZlist1 then return XY4 Xe2pty substitutionY --- i! 22 occurs in expressionZlist1 then return false4 Xunification i2possible 3 !erify;Y --- return XexpressionZlist1 P 22Y4 Xsubstitute expressionZlist1 for 22Y end Xnow, expressionZlist1, or expressionZlist2 consists of a single 2e2ber that is not !ariableY if expressionZlist1 ^ expressionZlist2 then return XY4 Xe2pty substitutionY return false4 Xunification i2possible 3 !erify;Y end #9ercise /.2.+. Verify that this progra2 detects, are two expression lists unifiable, or not, and, if they are, it returns one of their 2gu-s$ /Hint' repeat the proof of *e22a .$=$&$0 .mart idea V0? ;o derive contradictions, :e can do :ith even more s$eci!ic kind o! the

22+ uni!ication rule E the mguDrule' a0 Take two clauses, 2ark a positi!e ato2 < in the first clause, and a negati!e ato2 f in the second one$ Thus, we are considering two clauses' 9!< and f !A$ b0 Try to find any 2gu of < and $ 7f you succeed, you ha!e obtained two clauses' 9$2gu ! <1, f<1 ! A$2gu, where <1 is <$2gu /^ $2gu0$ c0 6pply resolution, obtaining the clause 9$2gu ! A$2gu$ ;heorem /.2., ( K. 5. %obinson)$ 7n the classical predicate logic V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, a set of predicate clauses is inconsistent4 if and only if (obinsonBs resolution rule /together with per2utation, reduction and mgurules0 allows deri!ing a contradiction fro2 it$ 1hy is this /second;0 refine2ent i2portant8 Gecause now, instead of trying out all the possible unifications, we can concentrate on 2gu-s that unify two clauses$ This allows to further restrict the substitution search s$ace /when co2pared with Theore2 .$=$20$ The hard part of the proof is in!enting of the following Lemma /.2./. 6ny proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- " /all "-s are clauses0, where only per2utation, reduction, substitution and resolution rules are used, can be con!erted into a proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- "B such that' a0 in the proof, only per2utation, reduction, mgu and resolution rules are used4 b0 " can be obtained fro2 "B by a single /possibly e2pty0 substitution, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ Proo! o! ;heorem /.2.,. 6ssu2e, the set of clauses "1, "2, $$$ , "s is inconsistent$ Then, by Theore2 .$=$1, there are two proofs "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- G, "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- fG, where where only per2utation, reduction, substitution and resolution rules are used$ 9ro2 clauses, these rules allow deri!ing only of clauses$ Hence, G is an ato2ic for2ula$ Gy *e22a .$=$., both proofs can be con!erted into proofs "1, "2, $$$ , "s UG1, "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- fG2 such that' a0 in the proofs, only per2utation, reduction, mgu and resolution rules are used4 b10 G can be obtained fro2 G1 by a single /possibly e2pty0 substitution /per2utations and reductions do not apply to ato2ic for2ulas0, b20 G can be obtained fro2 G2 by a single /possibly e2pty0 substitution$ Thus, G1 and G2 are unifiable$ *et us take their 2gu, and apply it$ 6s the

2&0 result, we obtain a contradiction GB, fGB, where GB is G1$2gu /^ G2$2gu0$ 6nd we ha!e obtained this contradiction fro2 the clauses "1, "2, $$$ , "s by using only per2utation, reduction, mgu and resolution rules$ D$@$ $ Proo! Lemma /.2./.$ 7nduction by the Sheight of the resolution treeS /see below0$ 1$ 7nduction base 3 no resolutions applied in the proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- "$ Then " is obtained fro2 so2e "i by a chain of per2utations, reductions and substitutions$ 6dd to this fact an Se2ptyS proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- "i$ 6nd let us co2pose all the substitutions into a single substitution$ D$@$ $ 2$ 7nduction step$ 6ssu2e, we ha!e the proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- ", containing at least one resolution$ 72agine the last resolution in this proof /< is an ato2ic for2ula0' 9!<, f<!A ----------------$ 9!A Then " is obtained fro2 the for2ula 9!A by a chain of per2utations, reductions and substitutions$ The proofs of the for2ulas 9!<, f<!A possess a Sheight of the resolution treeS less than the one of the proof "1, "2, $$$ , "s U- "$ Thus, by induction assu2ption, we can con!ert these proofs into per2utation-reduction-mguD resolution proofs of so2e for2ulas 91!<1!92 and A1! f<2!A2 such that' a0 9!< can be obtained fro2 91!<1!92 by a single /possibly e2pty0 substitution sub1, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ )nder sub1, the ato2ic for2ula <1 is con!erted into <$ b0 f<!A can be obtained fro2 A1! f<2!A2 by a single /possibly e2pty0 substitution sub2, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ )nder sub2, the ato2ic for2ula <2 is con!erted into <$ %ince the clauses 91!<1!92 and A1! f<2!A2 do not contain co22on !ariables, the substitutions sub1 and sub2 do not intersect, hence, their union sub1)sub2 is a substitution sub /a unifier of <1 and <20 such that' a10 9 can be obtained fro2 /91!920$sub by a chain of per2utations and reductions$

2&1 b10 A can be obtained fro2 /A1!A20$sub by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ 6s we know fro2 the abo!e, the ato2ic for2ulas <1 and <2 are unifiable$ *et us take their 2gu, and apply it to the for2ulas 91!<1!92 and A1! f<2!A2$ *et us denote by <B the for2ula <1$2gu /it is eQual to <2$2gu0$ Thus, we ha!e two for2ulas 91$2gu ! <B ! 92$2gu and A1$2gu ! f<B ! A2$2gu, and, by per2utation and resolution, we can obtain the for2ula /91!920$2gu ! /A1!A20$2gu$ Thus, for the for2ula /91!920$2gu ! /A1!A20$2gu, we ha!e a per2utationreduction-mguDresolution proof$ 7t re2ains to show that, fro2 this for2ula, 9!A can be obtained by a single substitution, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ %ince the substitution sub is a unifier of <1 and <2, then, by the definition of 2gu, sub^2gu$subB, where subB is so2e substitution$ Hence, a20 9 can be obtained fro2 /91!920$2gu by the substitution subB, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ b20 A can be obtained fro2 /A1!A20$2gu by the substitution subB, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ Thus, 9!A can be obtained fro2 /91!920$2gu ! /A1!A20$2gu by the substitution subB, followed by a chain of per2utations and reductions$ D$@$ $ 3arning8 espite its beauty, resolution 2ethod cannot o!erco2e the general co2plexity proble2, 2entioned at the end of %ection -$&' by <hurch-"al2ar Theore2, in the classical predicate logic, the task of reasoning is unsol!able$ 6nd a closer analysis shows that all co2puter progra2s i2ple2enting resolution 2ethod run into loop i2n 2any situations, when the for2ula to be pro!ed is, in fact, unpro!able$ Gut in 2any $ractical situations, experience shows that resolution 2ethod sol!es its task, and - in acceptable ti2e$ 7n particular, #rolog interpreters are using resolution, and are sol!ing 2any tasks !ery well;

$$$ To be continued$ 9urther reading'

2&2 *ogic$ #art 2 by 7iorgio Ingargiola %aBBan .hinghal$ 9or2al <oncepts in 6rtificial 7ntelligence$ 9unda2entals$ <hap2anIHall, 1++2, ,,, pp$ Handbook of 6uto2ated (easoning, ed$ by 6$ (obinson and 6$ Voronko!, @lse!ier %cience, 2001, !ol$ 7, 77$ *arry 1osBs ho2e page 6bout the ubiQuity of the abo!e-2entioned unification operation in hu2an and co2puter reasoning' Kohn <. .o:a, 5run K. MaBumdar$ 6nalogical (easoning$ 7n' Concept$a% Str$ct$res for Cno-%e+ge Creation an+ Comm$nication, #roceedings of 7<<% 200&, *?67 2=-,, %pringer-Verlag, Gerlin, 200&, pp$ 1,-&,$ /online copy0$

2&&

1. Miscellaneous
1.). 6egation as "ontradiction or 5bsurdity
The idea behind this approach is as follows' let us define pG /i$e$ SG is falseS0 as SG i2plies absurdityS$ %o, let us add to our first order language a predicate constant f /2eaning SfalseS, or SabsurdityS0, and let us replace all negation expressions p9 by 9-bf$ Then, the three negation axio2s will take the following for2s' L*' /G-b<0-b//G-bp<0-bpG0, L*B' /G-b<0-b//G-b/<-bf00-b/G-bf00, L)I' pG-b/G-b<0, L)IB' /G-bf0-b/G-b<0, L))' G!pG, L))B' G!/G-bf0$ 6fter this, surprisingly, the axio2 *+B beco2es deri!able fro2 *1-*2; 7ndeed, /10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 /,0 G-b< G-b/<-bf0 G <-bf < f Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 /20 and /&0 Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /&0 Gy 5#, fro2 /-0 and /.0

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, 5#W U- /G-b<0-b//G-b/<-bf00-b/Gbf00$ %econd obser!ation' *10B' /G-bf0-b/G-b<0 can be replaced si2ply by f-b<$ 7ndeed, if we assu2e f-b<, then *10B beco2es deri!able'

2&/10 /20 /&0 /-0 /.0 G-bf G f U- f-b< < Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /20 f-b< Gy 5#, fro2 /&0 and /-0

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, f-b<, 5#W U- /G-bf0-b/G-b<0$ Third obser!ation$ 6s we know fro2 Theore2 2$-$+' V*1, *2, *+, 5#W U- pGb/G-bp<0, in the 2ini2al logic we can pro!e .0T of *10' S<ontradiction i2plies that all is wrongS$ 6fter our replacing negations by G-bf the for2ula /G-bf0-b/G-b/<-bf0 beco2es deri!able fro2 *1-*2$ 7ndeed, /10 G-bf /20 G /&0 f /-0 U- f-b/<-bf0 /.0 <-bf Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /20 6xio2 *1 Gy 5#, fro2 /&0 and /-0

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1, *2, 5#W U- /G-bf0-b/G-b/<-bf00$ Thus, we see that *1 /and not *+;0 is responsible for pro!ability of the .0T Scra:yS for2ula pG-b/G-bp<0$ 7s *1 .0T as Scra:yS as *108 Kes; *et us co2pare' *10' pG-b/G-b<0 states that S<ontradiction i2plies anythingS$ *1' G-b/<-bG0 states that S7f G is true, then G follows fro2 anythingS$ *et us recall our Sargu2entS for *10 fro2 %ection 1$&' S$$$we do not need to know, were < StrueS or not, if pG and G were StrueS si2ultaneously$ Gy assu2ing that Sif pG and G were true si2ultaneously, then anything were trueS we greatly si2plify our logical apparatus$S ?ow, si2ilarly' if G is /unconditionally0 true, then we do not need to know, follows G fro2 < or not$ Gy assu2ing that Sif G is true, then G follows fro2 anythingS we greatly si2plify our logical apparatus$

2&. 7n a sense, the axio2 *+ SdefinesS the negation of the 2ini2al logic, the axio2s *+ and *10 SdefineS the negation of the constructi!e logic, and *+-*11 SdefineS the negation of the classical logic$ 7s our definition of pG as G-bf eQui!alent to these SdefinitionsS8 Kes; ;heorem 1.).). 9or any for2ula 9, let us denote by 9B the for2ula obtained fro2 9 by replacing all sub-for2ulas pA by A-bf$ Then, for any for2ulas G1, $$$, Gn, <' V*1-*+, 5#W' G1, $$$, Gn U- <, if and only if V*1-*C, 5#W' GB1, $$$, GBn U- <B$ Proo!. 10 -b$ *et us consider a proof of V*1-*+, 5#W' G1, $$$, Gn U- <$ 7n this proof' - let us replace each for2ula A by its StranslationS AB, - before each instance of *+, let us insert a proof of the corresponding instance of *B+ in V*1, *2, 5#W /see abo!e0$ 7n this way we obtain a proof of V*1-*C, 5#W' GB1, $$$, GBn U- <B$ 7ndeed, a0 7f so2e for2ula G is an instance of *1-*C, then GB is an instance of the sa2e axio2 /!erify;0$ b0 /G-b 0B is GB-b B, hence, if the initial proof contains a conclusion by 5# fro2 G and G-b to , then, in the deri!ed proof, it is con!erted into a conclusion by 5# fro2 GB and GB-b B to B$ c0 7f the initial proof contains an instance of *+, then the deri!ed proof contains the corresponding instance of *B+ preceded by its proof in V*1, *2, 5#W$ D$@$ $ 20 _-$ *et us recall the abo!e translation operation' for any for2ula 9, we denoted by 9B the for2ula obtained fro2 9 by replacing all sub-for2ulas pA by A-bf$ ?ow, let us introduce a kind of a con!erse operation - the re-translation operation' for any for2ula 9, let us denote by 9S the for2ula obtained fro2 9' a0 by replacing all sub-for2ulas A-bf by pA, and after this, b0 by replacing all the re2aining fBs /f 2eans SfalseS;0 by p/a-ba0, where a is so2e closed for2ula of the language considered$ Rf course, for any for2ula 9, /9B0S is 9 /!erify0$

2&, 6ote$ (eplacing f by a for2ula preceded by negation, is crucial - it will allow using Theore2 2$-$+' V*1-*+, 5#W' pG-b/G-bp<0 instead of the 6xio2 *10' pG-b/G-b<0$ ?ow, let us consider a proof of V*1-*C, 5#W' GB1, $$$, GBn U- <B$ 7n this proof, let us replace each for2ula A by its re-translation AS$ Then <B beco2es <, and GB1, $$$, GBn beco2e G1, $$$, Gn, but what about the re2aining for2ulas contained in the proof8 a0 7nstances of the axio2s *1-*C$ L)' G-b/<-bG0 7f G is not f, then /G-b/<-bG00S is GS-b/<S-bGS0, i$e$ re-translation yields again an instance of *1$ 7f G is f, then /f-b/<-bf00S is p/a-ba0-bp<S$ This for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ 7ndeed, /10 /20 /&0 /-0 p/a-ba0 U- p/a-ba0-b//a-ba0-bp<S0 U- a-ba p<S Hypothesis$ Theore2 2$-$+, V*1-*+, 5#W$ Theore2 1$-$1 V*1-*2, 5#W$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10, /20 and /&0$

Thus, re-translation of any instance of *1 is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ L0' /G-b/<-b 00-b//G-b<0-b/G-b 00 7f < and are not f, then re-translation yields again an instance of *2$

7f < is f, and is not, then re-translation yields /GS-b/p/a-ba0-b S00-b/pGSb/GS-b S00$ This for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ 7ndeed, /10 GS-b/p/a-ba0-b S0 /20 pGS /&0 GS /-0 p/a-ba0-b S /.0 U- pGS-b/GS-bp/a-ba00 Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 /10 and /&0$ Theore2 2$-$+ V*1-*+, 5#W$

2&= /,0 p/a-ba0 /=0 S Gy 5#, fro2 /20, /&0 and /.0$ Gy 5#, fro2 /-0 and /,0$

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*+, 5#W U- /GS-b/p/a-ba0-b S00-b/pGSb/GS-b S00$ 7f is f, and < is not, then re-translation yields /GS-bp<S0-b//GS-b<S0-bpGS0$ This for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ 7ndeed, /10 /20 /&0 GS-bp<S GS-b<S pGS Hypothesis$ Hypothesis$ Gy 5#, fro2 6xio2 *+$

Hence, by eduction Theore2 1, V*1-*+, 5#W U-/GS-bp<S0-b//GS-b<S0-bpGS0$ 7f < and both are f, then re-translation yields /GS-bpp/a-ba00-b/pGS-bpGS0$ This for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ 7ndeed, /10 /20 /&0 U- pGS-bpGS U- /pGS-bpGS0-b/J-b/pGSbpGS00 U- J-b/pGS-bpGS0 Theore2 1$-$1 V*1-*2, 5#W$ 6xio2 *1, J is GS-bpp/a-ba0$ Gy 5#, J is GS-bpp/a-ba0$

Thus, re-translation of any instance of *2 is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ L+' GI<-bG 7f G is not f, then re-translation yields again an instance of *&$ 7f G is f, then re-translation yields !ia p/fI<0 the for2ula p/p/a-ba0I<0$ This for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ 7ndeed, /10 U- p/a-ba0I< -b p/a-ba0 /20 U- pp/a-ba0 -b p/p/a-ba0I<0 /&0 U- /a-ba0-bpp/a-ba0 /-0 U- a-ba 6xio2 *&$ 9ro2 /10, by the <ontraposition *aw$ Theore2 2$-$-' V*1, *2, *+, 5#W U6-bpp6 Theore2 1$-$1 V*1-*2, 5#W$

2&C /.0 U- p/p/a-ba0I<0 Gy 5#, fro2 /&0, /-0 and /20$

Thus, re-translation of any instance of *& is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ L,' GI<-b< %i2ilarly to *& - re-translation of any instance of *- is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ L/' G-b/<-bGI<0 (e-translation yields again an instance of *.$ L1' G-bG!< (e-translation yields again an instance of *,$ L2' <-bG!< (e-translation yields again an instance of *=$ LG' /G-b 0-b//<-b 0-b/G!<-b 0 7f is not f, then re-translation yields again an instance of *C$

7f is f, then re-translation yields pG-b/p<-bp/G!<00$ Gy Theore2 2$-$10/b0, this for2ula is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W $ Thus, re-translation of any instance of *C is pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W$ Hence, re-translations of all /i$e$ *1-*C0 axio2 instances are pro!able in V*1*+, 5#W$ 1hat about applications of 5# in the initial proof8 7f the initial proof contains a conclusion by 5# fro2 G and G-b to , then the following situations are possible' a0 7f G and are not f, then, in the deri!ed proof, this conclusion is con!erted into a conclusion by 5# fro2 GS and GS-b S to S$ b0 7f G is f, and is not, then, in the deri!ed proof, this conclusion is con!erted into a conclusion by 5# fro2 p/a-ba0 and p/a-ba0-b S to S$ c0 7f is f, and G is not, then, in the deri!ed proof, this conclusion is con!erted into three for2ulas' GS, pGS, p/a-ba0$ To deri!e p/a-ba0 fro2 GS and pGS, we can use 5# and Theore2 2$-$+' V*1-*+, 5#W U- pGS-b/GS-bp/aba00$ d0 7f G and are both f, then, in the deri!ed proof, this conclusion is con!erted into three for2ulas' p/a-ba0, pp/a-ba0, p/a-ba0$ %i2ply drop the

2&+ third for2ula fro2 the proof$ Thus, the re-translation operation, when applied to all for2ulas of a proof of V*1-*C, 5#W' GB1, $$$, GBn U- <B, yields a seQuence of for2ulas that are pro!able in V*1-*+, 5#W fro2 hypotheses G1, $$$, Gn$ Hence, so is <$ D$@$ $ This co2pletes the proof of Theore2 ,$1$1$ "orollary 1.).0$ a0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the 2ini2al propositional logic V*1-*+, 5#W, if and only if V*1-*C, 5#W U- <B$ b0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the constructi!e propositional logic V*1-*10, 5#W, if and only if V*1-*C, f-bG, 5#W U- <B$ c0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the classical propositional logic V*1-*11, 5#W, if and only if V*1-*C, f-bG, *B11, 5#W U- <B$ Proo!. a0 <onsider an e2pty set of hypotheses in Theore2 ,$1$1$ b0 7f V*1-*10, 5#W U- <, then V*1-*+, 5#W' G1, $$$, Gn U- <, where hypotheses are instances of the axio2 *10$ Gy Theore2 ,$1$1, V*1-*C, 5#W' GB1, $$$, GBn U<B$ 6s established abo!e, GB1, $$$, GBn can be pro!ed by using the axio2 sche2a f-bG, i$e$ V*1-*C, f-bG, 5#W U- <B$ D$@$ $ ?ow, if V*1-*C, f-bG, 5#W U- <B, then, c0 7f V*1-*11, 5#W U- <, then V*1-*+, 5#W' G1, $$$, Gn U- <, where hypotheses are instances of the axio2s *10 and *11$ (eturn to case /b0$ D$@$ $ "orollary 1.).+$ a0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the 2ini2al predicate logic V*1-*+, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, if and only if V*1-*C, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- <B$ b0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the constructi!e predicate logic V*1-*10, *12*1., 5#, AenW, if and only if V*1-*C, f-bG, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- <B$ c0 6 for2ula < is pro!able in the classical predicate logic V*1-*11, *12-*1., 5#, AenW, if and only if V*1-*C, f-bG, *11B, *12-*1., 5#, AenW U- <B$ #9ercise 1.).). #ro!e the <orollary ,$1$&$