Semantic Consequence Union Negation

Theorem
Let $U$ be a set of propositional formulas.

Let $P$ be a propositional formula.

Let $U \models P$ denote that $U$ is a semantic consequence $P$.

Then:
 * $U \models P$

iff:
 * $U \cup \set {\neg P}$ has no models.

Sufficient Condition
$U \models P$.

Let $\MM$ be a model such that:
 * $\MM \models U \cup \set {\neg P}$

Then by definition of $\MM$ being a model, we have that:
 * $\MM \models U$

and by definition of semantic consequence:
 * $\MM \models P$

So we have that $\MM \models P$ and $\MM \models \neg P$

By definition of contradiction, it follows that there can be no such model.

So $U \models P$ is a sufficient condition for $U \cup \set {\neg P}$ to have no models.

Necessary Condition
Suppose that $U \cup \set {\neg P}$ has no models.

There are the following possibilities:

$(1): \quad \neg P$ has no models, in which case it is itself a contradiction.

Hence from Tautology and Contradiction, $P$ is a tautology.

Hence $P$ is true under every model.

Hence whatever $U$ may be, every model of $U$ is also a model of $P$:
 * $U \models P$

$(2): \quad U$ has no models, in which case every model of $U$ is also a model of $P$ vacuously, and so:
 * $U \models P$

$(3): \quad$ There exists at least one model of $U$, but each one does not model $\neg P$.

Let $\MM$ be such a model.

We have that:
 * $\MM \not \models \neg P$

so by definition of negation:
 * $\MM \models P$

Thus $\MM \models U$ implies that $\MM \models P$.

Hence by definition:
 * $U \models P$

In all cases $U \models P$.

So $U \models P$ is a necessary condition for $U \cup \set {\neg P}$ to have no models.