2010_lecture11

# 2010_lecture11 - CS245 Winter 2010 Lecture 11 Shai...

This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

CS245 - Winter 2010, Lecture 11 Shai Ben-David Formal proofs are part of the syntax aspect of propositional logic. Formal provability is deﬁned by a strict rules concerning the characters in a proposition without addressing their meaning (the truth values). There is yet another important syntactic notion - consistency. Deﬁnition A set of propositions, Σ is consistent if, there exists no proposition α for which both Σ α and σ ( ¬ α ). A set is inconsistent if it is not consistent. Intuitively speaking, a set of propositions is consistent if it domes no con- tradiction can be derived from it. Examples: The following sets are inconsistent. 1. Σ 1 = { p, ( ¬ p ) } . 2. Σ 2 = { a, ( a b ) , ( ¬ b ) } . I leave it to you to prove that these sets are inconsistent by showing that Σ 1 p , Σ 1 ( ¬ p ) } , Σ 2 b and Σ - 2 ( ¬ b ). Can we come up with examples of consistent sets? This seems to be a bit more diﬃcult, since, showing that a set Σ is consistent amounts to showing that, for every proposition α if Σ α then no sequence of propositions consists a formal proof of ( ¬ α ) from Σ. Recalling the monotonicity of propositional logic (Namely, that Σ

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page1 / 2

2010_lecture11 - CS245 Winter 2010 Lecture 11 Shai...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online