Questions tagged [natural-deduction]

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

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

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

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

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

929 questions
6
votes
1 answer

What if we don't accept ex falso quodlibet?

What happens in a logical system if we do not state ex falso quodlibet? $\bot\rightarrow P$
Gergely
  • 665
4
votes
2 answers

Did I solve this correctly? (Natural deduction)

Using the natural deduction method, how would you solve this: Premises: $\{s, s → t\}.\quad$ Conclusion: $\{s ∧ t\}$ My proposed solution (mind you, I'm brand new at this): $$\begin{align} s\rightarrow t &\qquad (\to \textrm{elim}) \\ t \\ s…
3
votes
3 answers

Optimal Solution in Natural Deduction

Does there exist an optimal solution for derivations in natural deduction, which is to say that the derivation in question requires the least amount of steps to arrive at the desired conclusion?
user94284
  • 115
3
votes
1 answer

Natural deduction proof of $p \rightarrow q \vdash \lnot(p \land \lnot q)$

So yeah, the entire question is pretty much in the title. $$p \rightarrow q \vdash \lnot(p \land \lnot q)$$ I've been able to derive the reverse, but I don't how to logically go from the premise to the conclusion using natural deduction only. I can…
2
votes
5 answers

Proving $ \lnot (A \Rightarrow B) \vDash A \land \lnot B $

I need help trying to prove $$ \lnot (A \Rightarrow B) \vDash A \land \lnot B $$ in natural deduction. I've come this far: $$ \begin{array}{|l}\hline \lnot (A \Rightarrow B) \text{ premise} \\ ~~\begin{array}{|l}\hline B \text{…
2
votes
1 answer

Derive $Q \rightarrow R \vdash (P \rightarrow Q) \rightarrow (P \rightarrow R)$

Can anyone help me with this basic derivation with natural rules of inference: $$ Q \rightarrow R \vdash (P \rightarrow Q) \rightarrow (P \rightarrow R) $$ I can use the follwing: $\wedge I, \wedge E, \vee I, \vee E, \rightarrow I, \rightarrow E,…
qwerty
  • 147
2
votes
1 answer

Natural Deduction Propositional Logic

How do I show that p → q ⊢ ¬p ∨ q is valid without using LEM (Law of Excluded Middle)? Edit: I want to know if this is okay: \begin{align} &\hspace{5pt}1.\; p\to q \hspace{43pt}\textrm{is given}\\ &\boxed{ \begin{align} &2.\; p…
Zee
  • 393
1
vote
2 answers

Am I assuming too much in this Natural Deduction proof?

So I need to prove the following using natural deduction: $M \to J, A \to J, \lnot M \to A, A \to \lnot J \vdash M, J, \lnot A$ This is my proof so far: 1.) $M \to J$ 2.) $A \to J$ 3.) $\lnot M \to A$ 4.) $A \to \lnot J$ 5.) $(M \to J) \lor (A \to…
1
vote
2 answers

Natural deduction (Proof tree)

It's not clear for me how to represent the proof tree of a sequent that doesn't use and hypothesis, for example: $p \vdash q \rightarrow p$. The problem is that $q$ should appear as hypothesis to derive $q \rightarrow p$, eventhough is not…
1
vote
2 answers

How to prove this: ¬C → B , C → ¬B ⊢ ¬B ↔ C in TFL with natural deduction?

I'm really stuck on how to prove ¬C → B , C → ¬B ⊢ ¬B ↔ C. I know I have $C \implies \sim B$ but in order to introduce the biconditional I have to prove $\sim B \implies C$ and I have no idea how. Any help is greatly appreciated. So far this is what…
1
vote
1 answer

Finding original sample size from result percentage (sales from returned units)

A local company published percentages of returned units for electronic components and one of the numbers raised the suspicion that number of sold units could be very low to cause such a high percentage of returns ( 31.7 ). I started thinking, if I…
1
vote
1 answer

Natural deduction Proof [(p →r) ∨ (q→r)]

Trying to go from [(p →r) ∨ (q→r)] to prove (p∧q)→r. Wanted to know if I am heading in the right direction with my deductions or where I am getting messed up. (p→r) ∨ (q→r) premise p assumption p→r assumption r →elim 2,3 q assumption q→r…
1
vote
1 answer

How to know if a new rule/ removing a rule in natural deduction is still sound/complete?

I'm generally confused about how to work this out, these are the questions that have been given to me, and I just don't know where to start on them: Consider the set of natural deduction rules, is the set of natural deduction without the rule RAA…
1
vote
2 answers

formal proof of $(p → q) → (¬q → ¬p)$

I'm asked to give a formal proof of $(p → q) → (¬q → ¬p)$ using natural deduction. Is that like saying prove $⊢ (p → q) → (¬q → ¬p$), where it should be proved from nothing?
1
vote
1 answer

Would natural deduction maintain its soundness with introduction of new rule?

I'm asked if adding the following rule to natural deduction would maintain the soundness and completeness of natural deduction. I think with the first one, natural deduction would maintain its completeness, because it doesn't change or take away any…
1
2 3