Definition:Natural Deduction

From ProofWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Definition

Natural deduction is a technique for deducing valid sequents from other valid sequents by applying precisely defined proof rules, by a technique called logical inference.

As such, natural deduction forms a proof system, which is focused on practical applicability.


Motivation

In its practical applicability, natural deduction differs from most proof systems in literature, which are more pedantic and formalistic, but therefore also more rigorous.

One may interpret natural deduction as the full-fledged proof system to actually use, once a formalistic alternative has been proved to satisfy all the rules of inference of natural deduction.

In doing so, it no longer matters which exact formalism was employed, and one can focus on the mathematical content itself.


On $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, we use natural deduction for both propositional logic and predicate logic.

Additionally, natural deduction may be applied not only for classical propositional logic, but also for more limited forms such as intuitionistic propositional logic, by employing the appropriate restrictions.


This article is complete as far as it goes, but it could do with expansion.
In particular: Define exactly what these restrictions are and preferably do this on a subpage
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by adding this information.
To discuss this page in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
When this work has been completed, you may remove this instance of {{Expand}} from the code.
If you would welcome a second opinion as to whether your work is correct, add a call to {{Proofread}} the page.


Rules of Inference

The proof system called natural deduction deals exclusively with the notion of provable consequence.

As such, it does not contain any axioms.

Practically, this means that any proof of natural deduction will start with premises or the Rule of Assumption.

The complete list of rules of inference of natural deduction is as follows:


Rule of Assumption

An assumption $\phi$ may be introduced at any stage of an argument.


Rule of Conjunction

If we can conclude both $\phi$ and $\psi$, we may infer the compound statement $\phi \land \psi$.


Rule of Simplification

$(1): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \land \psi$, then we may infer $\phi$.
$(2): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \land \psi$, then we may infer $\psi$.


Rule of Addition

$(1): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi$, then we may infer $\phi \lor \psi$.
$(2): \quad$ If we can conclude $\psi$, then we may infer $\phi \lor \psi$.


Proof by Cases

If we can conclude $\phi \lor \psi$, and:
$(1): \quad$ By making the assumption $\phi$, we can conclude $\chi$
$(2): \quad$ By making the assumption $\psi$, we can conclude $\chi$
then we may infer $\chi$.


Modus Ponendo Ponens

If we can conclude $\phi \implies \psi$, and we can also conclude $\phi$, then we may infer $\psi$.


Modus Tollendo Tollens

If we can conclude $\phi \implies \psi$, and we can also conclude $\neg \psi$, then we may infer $\neg \phi$.


Modus Tollendo Ponens

$(1): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \lor \psi$, and we can also conclude $\neg \phi$, then we may infer $\psi$.
$(2): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \lor \psi$, and we can also conclude $\neg \psi$, then we may infer $\phi$.


Modus Ponendo Tollens

$(1): \quad$ If we can conclude $\map \neg {\phi \land \psi}$, and we can also conclude $\phi$, then we may infer $\neg \psi$.
$(2): \quad$ If we can conclude $\map \neg {\phi \land \psi}$, and we can also conclude $\psi$, then we may infer $\neg \phi$.


Rule of Implication

If, by making an assumption $\phi$, we can conclude $\psi$ as a consequence, we may infer $\phi \implies \psi$.
The conclusion $\phi \implies \psi$ does not depend on the assumption $\phi$, which is thus discharged.


Double Negation Introduction

If we can conclude $\phi$, then we may infer $\neg \neg \phi$.


Double Negation Elimination

If we can conclude $\neg \neg \phi$, then we may infer $\phi$.


Biconditional Introduction

If we can conclude both $\phi \implies \psi$ and $\psi \implies \phi$, then we may infer $\phi \iff \psi$.


Biconditional Elimination

$(1): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \iff \psi$, then we may infer $\phi \implies \psi$.
$(2): \quad$ If we can conclude $\phi \iff \psi$, then we may infer $\psi \implies \phi$.


Principle of Non-Contradiction

If we can conclude both $\phi$ and $\neg \phi$, we may infer a contradiction.


Proof by Contradiction

If, by making an assumption $\phi$, we can infer a contradiction as a consequence, then we may infer $\neg \phi$.
The conclusion $\neg \phi$ does not depend upon the assumption $\phi$.


Rule of Explosion

If a contradiction can be concluded, it is possible to infer any statement $\phi$.


Law of Excluded Middle

$\phi \lor \neg \phi$ for all statements $\phi$.


Reductio ad Absurdum

If, by making an assumption $\neg \phi$, we can infer a contradiction as a consequence, then we may infer $\phi$.
The conclusion $\phi$ does not depend upon the assumption $\neg \phi$.


Derived Rules

In practically working with natural deduction, the following derived rules are useful.


Rule of Substitution

Let $S$ be a sequent of propositional logic that has been proved.

Then we may infer any sequent $S'$ resulting from $S$ by substitutions for letters.


Rule of Sequent Introduction

Let the statements $P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n$ be conclusions in a proof, on various assumptions.

Let $P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n \vdash Q$ be a sequent for which we already have a proof.

Then we may infer, at any stage of a proof (citing SI), the conclusion $Q$ of the sequent already proved.

This conclusion depends upon the pool of assumptions upon which $P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n$ rest.


Rule of Theorem Introduction

We may infer, at any stage of a proof (citing $\text {TI}$), a theorem already proved, together with a reference to the theorem that is being cited.


Also known as

Natural deduction is seen under various less precise names, for example decision procedure or decision method.

Some sources call it the axiomatic method.


Also see

Certain schools of logic have investigated the situation of what happens when certain of the above proof rules (and their equivalents) are disallowed:

  • Results about natural deduction can be found here.


Historical Note

The first system of rules for natural deduction was devised by Gerhard Gentzen in $1934$.


Technical Note: Templates

In order to make the use of the proof rules of natural deduction in a tableau proof on $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, the following templates have been developed:

Template:Premise      to invoke   the Rule of Assumption for a premise      
Template:Assumption      to invoke   the Rule of Assumption for a non-premise assumption      
Template:Conjunction      to invoke   the Rule of Conjunction      
Template:Simplification      to invoke   the Rule of Simplification      
Template:Addition      to invoke   the Rule of Addition      
Template:ProofByCases      to invoke   Proof by Cases      
Template:ModusPonens      to invoke   Modus Ponendo Ponens      
Template:ModusTollens      to invoke   Modus Tollendo Tollens      
Template:ModusPonendoTollens      to invoke   Modus Ponendo Tollens      
Template:ModusTollendoPonens      to invoke   Modus Tollendo Ponens      
Template:Implication      to invoke   the Rule of Implication      
Template:DoubleNegIntro      to invoke   Double Negation Introduction      
Template:DoubleNegElimination      to invoke   Double Negation Elimination      
Template:BiconditionalIntro      to invoke   Biconditional Introduction      
Template:BiconditionalElimination      to invoke   Biconditional Elimination      
Template:NonContradiction      to invoke   the Principle of Non-Contradiction      
Template:Contradiction      to invoke   Proof by Contradiction      
Template:Explosion      to invoke   the Rule of Explosion      
Template:ExcludedMiddle      to invoke   the Law of Excluded Middle      
Template:Reductio      to invoke   Reductio ad Absurdum      


For convenience, other templates are also available, for the following derived rules:

Template:Commutation      to invoke   the Rule of Commutation      
Template:DeMorgan      to invoke   an instance of De Morgan's Laws      
Template:Idempotence      to invoke   the Rule of Idempotence      
Template:IdentityLaw      to invoke   the Law of Identity      


For the other general proof rules, there exist the following templates:

Template:SequentIntro      to invoke   the Rule of Sequent Introduction      
Template:TheoremIntro      to invoke   the Rule of Theorem Introduction      
Template:Substitution      to invoke   the Rule of Substitution      


Sources

Retrieved from "https://proofwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Definition:Natural_Deduction&oldid=702477"