Equivalence of Definitions of Logical Consistence

This page has been identified as a candidate for refactoring of advanced complexity. In particular: see talk page Until this has been finished, please leave {{Refactor}} in the code. New contributors: Refactoring is a task which is expected to be undertaken by experienced editors only. Because of the underlying complexity of the work needed, it is recommended that you do not embark on a refactoring task until you have become familiar with the structural nature of pages of $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$. 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 {{Refactor}} from the code.

It has been suggested that this page be renamed. To discuss this page in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.

Theorem

Let $\mathbf H$ be a countable set (either finite or infinite) of WFFs of propositional logic.

The following statements are logically equivalent:

$(1): \quad$ $\mathbf H$ has a model.

$(2): \quad$ $\mathbf H$ is consistent for the proof system of propositional tableaux.

$(3): \quad$ $\mathbf H$ has no tableau confutation.

Proof

This theorem requires a proof. You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by crafting such a proof. 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 {{ProofWanted}} from the code. If you would welcome a second opinion as to whether your work is correct, add a call to {{Proofread}} the page.

Sources

• 1996: H. Jerome Keisler and Joel Robbin: Mathematical Logic and Computability ... (previous) ... (next): $\S 1.11$: Compactness: Corollary $1.11.7$