9slides(2) - Chapter 9 Completeness Theorem: Proof 2 A...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Chapter 9 Completeness Theorem: Proof 2 A Counter- Model Existence Method We prove now the Completeness Theorem by proving the opposite implication: If 6 A, then 6| = A We will show now how one can define of a counter-model for A from the fact that A is not provable. This means that we deduce that a formula A is not a tautology from the fact that it does not have a proof. We hence call it a a counter-model exis- tence method . 1 The construction of a counter-model for any non-provable A is much more general (and less constructive) then in the case of our first proof. It can be generalized to the case of predi- cate logic, and many of non-classical log- ics; propositional and predicate. It is hence a much more general method then the first one and this is the reason we present it here. 2 We remind that 6| = A means that there is a variable assignment v : V AR- { T,F } , such that v * ( A ) 6 = T , i.e. in classical se- mantics that v * ( A ) = F . a Such v is called a counter-model for A , hence the proof provides a counter-model construction method. Since we assume that A does not have a proof in S ( 6 A ) the method uses this informa- tion in order to show that A is not a tautol- ogy, i.e. to define v such that v * ( A ) = F . We also have to prove that all steps in that method are correct. This is done in the following steps. 3 Step 1: Definition of * We use the information 6 A to define a spe- cial set * , such that A * . Step 2: Counter - model definition We define the variable assignment v : V AR- { T,F } as follows: v ( a ) = ( T if * a F if * a. 4 Step 3: Prove that v is a counter-model We first prove a more general property, namely we prove that the set * and v defined in the steps 1 and 2, respectively, are such that for every formula B F , v * ( B ) = ( T if * B F if * B. Then we use the Step 1 to prove that v * ( A ) = F . The definition and the properties of the set * , and hence the Step 1 , are the most essential for the proof. The other steps have only technical character. 5 The main notions involved in this step are: consistent set, complete set and a con- sistent complete extension of a set. We are going now to introduce them and to prove some essential facts about them. Consistent and Inconsistent Sets There exist two definitions of consistency; se- mantical and syntactical. 6 Semantical definition uses the notion of a model and says: a set is consistent if it has a model . Syntactical definition uses the notion of prov- ability and says: a set is consistent if one cant prove a contradiction from it . In our proof of the Completeness Theorem we use assumption that a given formula A does not have a proof to deduce that A is not a tautology....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/12/2011 for the course CSE 541 taught by Professor Bachmair,l during the Spring '08 term at SUNY Stony Brook.

Page1 / 57

9slides(2) - Chapter 9 Completeness Theorem: Proof 2 A...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online