无不当推导的序贯系统

Q2 Arts and Humanities Bulletin of the Section of Logic Pub Date : 2021-10-14 DOI:10.18778/0138-0680.2021.21
K. Sasaki
{"title":"无不当推导的序贯系统","authors":"K. Sasaki","doi":"10.18778/0138-0680.2021.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the natural deduction system for classical propositional logic given by G. Gentzen, there are some inference rules with assumptions discharged by the rule. D. Prawitz calls such inference rules improper, and others proper. Improper inference rules are more complicated and are often harder to understand than the proper ones.\nIn the present paper, we distinguish between proper and improper derivations by using sequent systems. Specifically, we introduce a sequent system \\(\\vdash_{\\bf Sc}\\) for classical propositional logic with only structural rules, and prove that \\(\\vdash_{\\bf Sc}\\) does not allow improper derivations in general. For instance, the sequent \\(\\Rightarrow p \\to q\\) cannot be derived from the sequent \\(p \\Rightarrow q\\) in \\(\\vdash_{\\bf Sc}\\). In order to prove the failure of improper derivations, we modify the usual notion of truth valuation, and using the modified valuation, we prove the completeness of \\(\\vdash_{\\bf Sc}\\). We also consider whether an improper derivation can be described generally by using \\(\\vdash_{\\bf Sc}\\).","PeriodicalId":38667,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Section of Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sequent Systems without Improper Derivations\",\"authors\":\"K. Sasaki\",\"doi\":\"10.18778/0138-0680.2021.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the natural deduction system for classical propositional logic given by G. Gentzen, there are some inference rules with assumptions discharged by the rule. D. Prawitz calls such inference rules improper, and others proper. Improper inference rules are more complicated and are often harder to understand than the proper ones.\\nIn the present paper, we distinguish between proper and improper derivations by using sequent systems. Specifically, we introduce a sequent system \\\\(\\\\vdash_{\\\\bf Sc}\\\\) for classical propositional logic with only structural rules, and prove that \\\\(\\\\vdash_{\\\\bf Sc}\\\\) does not allow improper derivations in general. For instance, the sequent \\\\(\\\\Rightarrow p \\\\to q\\\\) cannot be derived from the sequent \\\\(p \\\\Rightarrow q\\\\) in \\\\(\\\\vdash_{\\\\bf Sc}\\\\). In order to prove the failure of improper derivations, we modify the usual notion of truth valuation, and using the modified valuation, we prove the completeness of \\\\(\\\\vdash_{\\\\bf Sc}\\\\). We also consider whether an improper derivation can be described generally by using \\\\(\\\\vdash_{\\\\bf Sc}\\\\).\",\"PeriodicalId\":38667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Section of Logic\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Section of Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.2021.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Section of Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.2021.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在G.Gentzen给出的经典命题逻辑的自然推理系统中,存在一些由规则所释放的假设的推理规则。D.Prawitz称这种推理规则是不恰当的,而其他规则则是恰当的。不适当的推理规则比正确的推理规则更复杂,通常更难理解。在本文中,我们使用序系统来区分正确和不正确的推导。具体地说,我们为经典命题逻辑引入了一个只有结构规则的序系统\(\vdash_{\bf-Sc}\),并证明了\(\vdash_{bf-Sc})一般不允许不适当的导子。例如,序列\(\Rightarrow p\to q\)不能从\(\vdash_{\bf-Sc}\)中的序列\(p\Rightarrow q\)派生。为了证明不正当推导的失败,我们修改了通常的真值估计的概念,并用修改后的估计证明了\(\vdash_{\bf-Sc}\)的完备性。我们还考虑了是否可以通过使用\(\vdash_{\bf-Sc}\)来描述不适当的推导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sequent Systems without Improper Derivations
In the natural deduction system for classical propositional logic given by G. Gentzen, there are some inference rules with assumptions discharged by the rule. D. Prawitz calls such inference rules improper, and others proper. Improper inference rules are more complicated and are often harder to understand than the proper ones. In the present paper, we distinguish between proper and improper derivations by using sequent systems. Specifically, we introduce a sequent system \(\vdash_{\bf Sc}\) for classical propositional logic with only structural rules, and prove that \(\vdash_{\bf Sc}\) does not allow improper derivations in general. For instance, the sequent \(\Rightarrow p \to q\) cannot be derived from the sequent \(p \Rightarrow q\) in \(\vdash_{\bf Sc}\). In order to prove the failure of improper derivations, we modify the usual notion of truth valuation, and using the modified valuation, we prove the completeness of \(\vdash_{\bf Sc}\). We also consider whether an improper derivation can be described generally by using \(\vdash_{\bf Sc}\).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bulletin of the Section of Logic
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
On pre-Hilbert and positive implicative pre-Hilbert algebras Free Spectra of Equivalential Algebras with Conjunction on Dense Elements Meaning is Use: the Case of Propositional Identity Fuzzy Sub-Equality Algebras Based on Fuzzy Points Linear Abelian Modal Logic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1